Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011

Taylor v. County of Suffolk

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided December 13, 2011

90 A.D.3d 769; 934 N.Y.2d 348

Cases that cite this one

51 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

Matter of Galicia v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
Matter of Nunez v. Village of Rockville Ctr. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
Kuterman v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Thompson v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Bell v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Bell v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Matter of Roman v. New York City Hous. Auth. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
Lobos v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
Matter of Antoinette C. v. County of Erie (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
Matter of Ortiz v. Westchester County (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
Matter of Romero v. County of Suffolk (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
Matter of C. N. v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
Matter of Beaton v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
Matter of Torres v. County of Westchester (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
Matter of R.N. v. Village of New Sq. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
Matter of Islam v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
Matter of Nicholson v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
Matter of Johnson v. County of Suffolk (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
Cuccia v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
Matter of Fethallah v. New York City Police Dept. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
Stewart v. Westchester Institute for Human Development (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
Matter of Clark v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
Matter of Hamilton v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
Williams v. Jamaica Hospital Medical Center (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Matter of Thill v. North Shore Cent. School Dist. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

*770The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the petition for leave to serve a late notice of claim. The petitioners failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for their one-year delay in filing the petition. The petitioners’ alleged ignorance of the law is not a reasonable excuse for their failure to serve a timely notice of claim (see Matter of Bush v City of New York, 76 AD3d 628 [2010]; Matter of Dancy v Poughkeepsie Hous. Auth., 220 AD2d 413 [1995]), and the injured petitioner failed to submit any medical evidence to support his claim that he was incapacitated to such an extent that he could not comply with the statutory requirement to serve a timely notice of claim (see Matter of Wright v City of New York, 66 AD3d 1037, 1038 [2009]; Matter of Portnov v City of Glen Cove, 50 AD3d 1041 [2008]; Matter of Papayannakos v Levittown Mem. Special Educ. Ctr., 38 AD3d 902 [2007]).

The petitioners contend that the respondents acquired actual knowledge of the facts constituting the claim within 90 days after the accident or a reasonable time thereafter by virtue of a police accident report made by the responding police officer. However, for a report to provide actual knowledge of the essential facts, one must be able to readily infer from that report that a potentially actionable wrong had been committed by the public corporation (see Matter of Devivo v Town of Carmel, 68 AD3d 991, 992 [2009]; Matter of Wright v City of New York, 66 AD3d at 1038). Here, the police accident report did not provide the respondents with actual notice of the petitioners’ claim of negligence in the happening of this accident or of the injured petitioner’s claim that he was injured as a result of the respondents’ negligence (see Matter of Wright v City of New York, 66 AD3d at 1038; Matter of National Grange Mut. Ins. Co. v Town of Eastchester, 48 AD3d 467, 468 [2008]). Furthermore, the petitioners failed to demonstrate that the delay did not substantially prejudice the respondents in maintaining their defense on the merits (see Matter of Liebman v New York City Dept. of Educ., 69 AD3d 633 [2010]; Matter of Smith v Baldwin Union Free School Dist., 63 AD3d 1078 [2009]; Matter of Felice v Eastport/South Manor Cent. School Dist., 50 AD3d 138, 152-153 [2008]). Skelos, J.E, Angiolillo, Belen, Lott and Roman, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.