Legal Opinion · Dissent

Shane v. Central New York Regional Transportation Authority

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

Decided December 30, 2010Published

1Dissent

Carni and Lindley, JJ.

(dissenting). We respectfully dissent and therefore would affirm the order denying plaintiffs application for leave to serve a late notice of claim. Supreme Court is “ ‘vested with broad discretion to grant or deny [an] application’ ” for leave to serve a late notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) (Matter of Hall v Madison-Oneida County Bd. of Coop. Educ. Servs., 66 AD3d 1434, 1435 [2009]; see Carpenter v NY Adoance Elec., Inc., 77 AD3d 1344, 1345 [2010]) and, absent a clear abuse of discretion, the court’s determination should not be disturbed…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Hall v. Madison-Oneida County Board of Cooperative Educational ServicesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
  2. Lemma v. Off Track Betting Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2000
  3. Schwindt v. County of EssexAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
  4. Hinton v. New Paltz Central School DistrictAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2008
  5. Mangona v. Village of GreenwichAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API