The Appellate Division stated that the defendants lacked timely actual knowledge of the facts regarding the newly asserted claims, impacting their defense in the case.
The court emphasized that knowledge of the injury alone was insufficient for the city to mount an adequate defense against the new claims of negligent supervision.
In its decision, the Appellate Division highlighted that the plaintiff's late notice of claim failed to provide a reasonable excuse for the delay and potential prejudice to defendants.
In reversing the lower court's ruling, the appellate court underscored the importance of ensuring that all parties have the necessary information to defend against claims in property cases.
[
Collection
]
[
|
...
]