TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Cruz v. City of Yonkers

Stephen Cruz, an Infant, by Her Parent and Natural Guardian, Emily Cruz v. City of Yonkers

Cruz v. City of Yonkers, 268 A.D.2d 501 (2000)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
January 24, 2000
Citations
268 A.D.2d 501702 N.Y.S.2d 3562000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 703

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

—In an action to recover damages, inter alla, for sexual abuse, etc., the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), entered January 20, 1999, as denied that branch of their motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5), which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted by the infant plaintiff Stephen Cruz, and granted that branch of the plaintiffs’ cross motion which was for leave to serve a late notice of claim on behalf of the plaintiff Stephen Cruz.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The five-year-old infant plaintiff was allegedly abused at school by a sixth-grade student in January or February 1995. It was not discovered by the infant’s mother until he disclosed it on March 13, 1995. She promptly reported it to school authorities and the Yonkers Police Department on March 15, 1995. On June 9, 1995, the plaintiffs served a notice of claim upon the defendants. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to serve a timely notice of claim and the plaintiffs cross-moved for leave to serve a late notice of claim.

Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the infant plaintiff leave to serve a late notice of claim (see, General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]). In granting leave, the Supreme Court properly factored in the age of the infant plaintiff, the physical threats made to him by the alleged perpetrator, and the lack of substantial prejudice to the defendants due to their actual knowledge of the essential elements of the incident shortly after its alleged occurrence (see, Matter of Presley v City of New York, 254 AD2d 490 ). Accordingly, the Supreme Court order is affirmed. Mangano, P. J., Ritter, Joy, McGinity and Smith, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

2001: 12008: 12013: 12020: 120012026peak 2001 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. McLeod v. City of New York105 A.D.3d 744 (2013)
  2. Catterson v. Suffolk County Department of Health Services49 A.D.3d 792 (2008)
  3. Skamagas v. Board of Education280 A.D.2d 596 (2001)
  4. Doe v. City of New York2020 NY Slip Op 3768

Most recent

  1. Doe v. City of New York2020 NY Slip Op 3768
  2. McLeod v. City of New York105 A.D.3d 744 (2013)
  3. Catterson v. Suffolk County Department of Health Services49 A.D.3d 792 (2008)
  4. Skamagas v. Board of Education280 A.D.2d 596 (2001)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Presley v. City of N.Y., 254 A.D.2d 490 (1998) 4

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list