Court Opinion

ID: 5945060
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-13 05:59:07.953728+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:46:58.824375
License: Public Domain

Under the circumstances of this case, we find that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the petitioner’s application for leave to file a late notice of claim (see, Matter of Harris v Dormitory Auth., 168 AD2d 560; Rosenblatt v City of New York, 160 AD2d 927; Baldeo v City of New York, 127 AD2d 809; Matter of Cannistra v Town of Putnam Val., 124 AD2d 801). Kunzeman, J. P., Balletta, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.