In Arvelo v. City of New York, 182 Misc 2d 101 (Civ Ct, Richmond County 1999), Judge Straniere granted the plaintiff's motion for leave to file a late notice of claim against the defendant, holding that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain a motion to file a late notice of claim, and that moreover, GML 50-e(7) is: "...unconstitutional in that there is no rational basis for the disparity of treatment or the imposition of a greater burden of seeking redress in the Supreme Court for permission to file a late Notice of Claim on the litigants of Civil Court, and, more particularly, residents of New York City. The Court further finds no rational basis for the legislature's exclusion of the New York Civil Court in the statutory scheme and creation of this disparate burden on New York City residents as compared to the residents of other counties who have available the use of either the Supreme Court or County Court, the lower court having similar jurisdiction to that of the New York City Civil Court" (Arvelo at 109.) Judge Straniere found that while "the statute on its face appears to prohibit an application" for the relief of filing a late notice of claim in Civil Court, "an examination of the underlying logic of the statute and its legislative history reveals that the Civil Court is, in fact, an appropriate forum for this redress" Id at 103. Under the precise language of 50-e, a litigant who resided outside of New York City and commenced an action in County Court could file for leave to file a late notice of claim in that same court, whereas a litigant in the City of New York who filed a suit in Civil Court would have to put all discovery and litigation on hold while he or his attorney traveled to Supreme Court solely for the purpose of the motion. This anomaly resulted in the most "onerous" burden being placed on the litigant who commenced his action in Civil Court but was compelled to seek a remedy in Supreme Court, which created "a disparity among litigants based solely on their basis of residence in New York State, which the Legislature had no rational basis for instituting" "Id. at 105. Judge Straniere then found that 50-e was unconstitutional as there was "no rational basis for the disparity of treatment or the imposition of a greater burden of seeking redress in the Supreme Court for permission to file a late notice of claim on the litigants of Civil Court and more particularly, residents of New York City." 182 Misc 2d at 109.