# Hall v. Madison-Oneida County Board of Cooperative Educational Services

> Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · October 2, 2009 · 66 A.D.3d 1434

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5784029

## Case

- **Full name:** In the Matter of David Hall v. Madison-Oneida County Board of Cooperative Educational Services, Also Known as Madison-Oneida County BOCES
- **Court:** Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- **Decided:** October 2, 2009
- **Citations:** 66 A.D.3d 1434; 885 N.Y.S.2d 690
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Cited by:** 26 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5784029

## Opinion text

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Oneida County (Samuel D. Hester, J.), entered June 16, 2008. The order granted claimant’s application for leave to serve a late notice of claim.
*1435 It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: 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). “The court is vested with broad discretion to grant or deny [such an] application” (Wetzel Servs. Corp. v Town of Amherst, 207 AD2d 965 [1994]) and, although claimant failed to offer a reasonable excuse for his failure to serve the notice of claim within the statutory 90-day period (see General Municipal Law § 50-e [1] [a]), that failure “ ‘is not fatal where . . . actual notice was had and there is no compelling showing of prejudice to [respondent]’ ” (Hale v Webster Cent. School Dist., 12 AD3d 1052, 1053 [2004]; see Matter of LaMay v County of Oswego, 49 AD3d 1351, 1352 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 715 [2008]). 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., 207 AD2d 965 [1994]). Present—Hurlbutt, J.E, Fahey, Peradotto, Green and Pine, JJ.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5784029. Public record. Not legal advice.