Washington v. City of New York

N.Y.

Court: New York Court of Appeals

Citations: 72 N.Y.2d 881, 532 N.Y.S.2d 361, 528 N.E.2d 513, 1988 N.Y. LEXIS 1665

Decision Date: 7/7/1988

Jurisdiction: NY

Bluebook Citation: Washington v. City of New York, 72 N.Y.2d 881, 532 N.Y.S.2d 361, 528 N.E.2d 513, 1988 N.Y. LEXIS 1665 (1988)

More Cases: N.Y. decisions from 1988

Citation analytics

How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.

★Highly CitedTop 7% most-cited · cited by 48 decisions

Citing decisions

Courts citing

Citations by decade

1990s2000s2010s2020s

Courts citing this case

N.Y. App. Div.39

N.Y. Sup. Ct.4

N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty.4

NY1

Most recently cited by10

2025Matter of Crawford v. City of New York N.Y. App. Div.
2025Pratt v. City of New York N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty.
2025Pecola v. New York City Hous. Auth. N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty.
2024Clark v. City of New York N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty.
2024Williams v. New York City Hous. Auth. N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty.
2024The Matter of Luis Jaime v. City of New York , The Matter of Adan Orozco v. City of New York NY
2021Matter of Borrelli v. County of Erie N.Y. App. Div.
2020Durand v. MV Transp., Inc. N.Y. App. Div.
2016Humsted v. New York City Health N.Y. App. Div.
2013Klass v. City of New York N.Y. App. Div.

Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.

Opinion

Gregory Washington, Appellant, v City of New York, Respondent.

Attorneys

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Arnold E. Di Joseph, III, for appellant.
Peter L. Zimroth, Corporation Counsel (Dana Martine Robbins of counsel), for respondent.

majority

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

The lower courts did not abuse their discretion in denying plaintiffs motion to file a late notice of claim. Under General Municipal Law § 50-e (5), the trial court has discretion to extend the time to serve a late notice of claim in a proper case, and the statute permits the court to consider, among all other relevant facts and circumstances, whether the municipality had actual knowledge of the facts constituting the claim within the 90-day statutory period.

The trial court considered and appropriately rejected plaintiffs purely speculative contention that the City had actual notice of the accident. Plaintiff failed to sustain his burden of establishing that the City acquired knowledge of the accident within a reasonable time, conclusorily alleging the existence of an accident report and offering no reliable basis to support his claim that the accident was reported to the City building inspectors who were assigned to the work site.

Plaintiffs other contentions are without merit.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.