What did the court decide?

The appellate court allowed a late notice of claim for the minor J.S., reinstating J.S.'s portion of the amended complaint, but otherwise affirmed the trial court's denials of reargument and recusal.

Who is affected by this decision?

The plaintiffs (parents and their two children) and the Jordan-Elbridge Central School District are affected; specifically, J.S.'s claims proceed while other claims remain as previously resolved.

What happens next in the case?

J.S.'s claims are reinstated in the trial court for further proceedings; other claims remain subject to the prior rulings unless further appellate relief is sought.

Can this decision be appealed further?

A further appeal to the New York Court of Appeals may be available only by permission or if jurisdictional requirements are met; parties should consult counsel about the availability and timeliness of such review.

Jarrod W.S. v. Jordan-Elbridge Cent. Sch. Dist.

Docket 167 CA 25-00074

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

CivilAffirmed in Part, Reversed in Part

Filed: May 1, 2026 · 5 days ago
Jurisdiction: New York
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Type: Opinion
Case type: Civil
Disposition: Affirmed in Part, Reversed in Part
Citation: 2026 NY Slip Op 02746
Docket: 167 CA 25-00074

Appeal from an order denying plaintiffs' motion for leave to reargue, to serve a late notice of claim, and for recusal following dismissal of certain school-district claims

Summary

The Appellate Division reviewed plaintiffs' motion for leave to reargue, to serve a late notice of claim, and for recusal after Supreme Court denied those requests. The appellate court dismissed the appeal as to the denial of leave to reargue, granted in part the request to file a late notice of claim for the claims brought on behalf of minor J.S., deemed that notice timely served nunc pro tunc, and reinstated the amended complaint as to J.S.'s claims. In all other respects the lower court's order was affirmed. The court exercised its discretion under applicable notice-of-claim rules and related procedures.

Issues Decided

Whether Supreme Court abused its discretion in denying plaintiffs leave to serve a late notice of claim for claims asserted on behalf of the minor J.S.
Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to reargument of the court's prior decision.
Whether recusal of the trial judge was warranted.

Court's Reasoning

The Appellate Division exercised its discretionary authority to allow nunc pro tunc service of the notice of claim for J.S., finding grounds to treat that notice as timely for purposes of reinstating the amended complaint as to those claims. The court found no basis to disturb the trial court's denial of reargument, dismissing the appeal on that point. There was likewise no successful showing to require recusal, so the original order denying recusal was affirmed. The combination of discretion to excuse late notice and absence of error on reargument and recusal questions controlled the outcome.

Authorities Cited

Appellate Division precedent (same memorandum as related appeal)

Parties

Plaintiff: Jarrod W.S.
Plaintiff: Michelle A.S.
Plaintiff: J.S. (infant)
Plaintiff: O.S. (infant)
Defendant: Jordan-Elbridge Central School District
Judge: Robert E. Antonacci, II
Judge: Bannister, J.P.
Judge: Montour, J.
Judge: Greenwood, J.
Judge: Nowak, J.
Judge: Hannah, J.

Key Dates

Appellate Division decision date: 2026-05-01
Supreme Court order entered: 2025-01-08

What You Should Do Next

1
Proceed in trial court on J.S.'s claims
Plaintiffs and defendants should resume litigation of the reinstated amended complaint as it pertains to J.S., following any scheduling or pretrial orders.
2
Consult counsel about further appeal
If a party seeks additional review, they should promptly consult appellate counsel to evaluate whether to seek leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals or pursue other post-judgment relief.
3
Address outstanding claims and strategy
Parties should review which claims remain dismissed or unresolved and adjust litigation strategy accordingly, including discovery and motions limited to J.S.'s reinstated claims.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide?: The appellate court allowed a late notice of claim for the minor J.S., reinstating J.S.'s portion of the amended complaint, but otherwise affirmed the trial court's denials of reargument and recusal.
Who is affected by this decision?: The plaintiffs (parents and their two children) and the Jordan-Elbridge Central School District are affected; specifically, J.S.'s claims proceed while other claims remain as previously resolved.
What happens next in the case?: J.S.'s claims are reinstated in the trial court for further proceedings; other claims remain subject to the prior rulings unless further appellate relief is sought.
Can this decision be appealed further?: A further appeal to the New York Court of Appeals may be available only by permission or if jurisdictional requirements are met; parties should consult counsel about the availability and timeliness of such review.

The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.

Full Filing Text

Jarrod W.S. v Jordan-Elbridge Cent. Sch. Dist. - 2026 NY Slip Op 02746

Jarrod W.S. v Jordan-Elbridge Cent. Sch. Dist.

2026 NY Slip Op 02746

May 1, 2026

Appellate Division, Fourth Department

JARROD W.S. AND MICHELLE A.S., AND JARROD W.S. AND MICHELLE A.S., ON BEHALF OF THEIR INFANT CHILDREN, J.S. AND O.S., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,

v

JORDAN-ELBRIDGE CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS. (APPEAL NO. 2.)

Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

Decided on May 1, 2026

167 CA 25-00074

Present: Bannister, J.P., Montour, Greenwood, Nowak, And Hannah, JJ.

SMITH PARRY, P.L.L.C., JORDAN (JARROD W. SMITH OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS.

BOND, SCHOENECK & KING, PLLC, SYRACUSE (RICHARD L. WEBER OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Robert E. Antonacci, II, J.), entered January 8, 2025. The order denied the motion of plaintiffs for leave to reargue, for leave to serve a late notice of claim, and for recusal.

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal from the order insofar as it denied leave to reargue is unanimously dismissed and the order is modified in the exercise of discretion by granting the motion in part insofar as it sought leave to serve a late notice of claim with respect to the claims asserted on behalf of J.S., deeming the notice of claim with respect to those claims timely served nunc pro tunc, and reinstating the amended complaint with respect to those claims, and as modified the order is affirmed without costs.

Same memorandum as in
Jarrod W.S. v Jordan-Elbridge Cent. Sch. Dist.
([appeal No. 1] — AD3d — [May 1, 2026] [4th Dept 2026]).

Entered: May 1, 2026

Ann Dillon Flynn