Opinion · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Casale v. Liverpool Central School District

Casale v. Liverpool Cent. Sch. Dist., 99 A.D.3d 1246 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York 2012)

Type
Opinion
Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Jurisdiction
New York
Date
2012-10-05
Topic
general

Memorandum: Contrary to respondent’s contention, Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in granting claimant’s application for leave to serve a late notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5). Although a court may properly consider whether a claimant provided a reasonable excuse for failing to serve a timely notice of claim (see Parton v Onondaga County, 81 AD3d 1433, 1433-1434 [2011]), a claimant’s failure to tender a reasonable excuse “is not fatal where . . . actual notice was had and there is no compelling showing of prejudice to [respondent]” (Matter of Hall v Madison-Oneida County Bd. of Coop. Educ. Servs., 66 AD3d 1434, 1435 [2009] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Hale *1247v Webster Cent. School Dist., 12 AD3d 1052, 1053 [2004]).

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Casale v. Liverpool Central School District. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Memorandum: Contrary to respondent’s contention, Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in granting claimant’s application for leave to serve a late notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5). Although a court may properly consider whether a claimant provided a reasonable excuse for failing to serve a timely notice of claim (see Parton v Onondaga County, 81 AD3d 1433, 1433-1434 [2011]), a claimant’s failure to tender a reasonable excuse “is not fatal where . . . actual notice was had and there is no compelling showing of prejudice to [respondent]” (Matter of Hall v Madison-Oneida County Bd. of Coop. Educ. Servs., 66 AD3d 1434, 1435 [2009] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Hale *1247 v Webster Cent. School Dist., 12 AD3d 1052, 1053 [2004]). Here, claimant “made a persuasive showing that [respondent] ‘acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim’ . . . [and respondent has] made no particularized or persuasive showing that the delay caused [it] substantial prejudice” (Wetzel Servs. Corp. v Town of Amherst, 207 AD2d 965, 965 [1994]; see § 50-e [5]). Present — Fahey, J.E, Peradotto, Garni and Sconiers, JJ.