From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fee v. County of Nassau

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 24, 2000
269 A.D.2d 489 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Submitted January 12, 2000

February 24, 2000

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant County of Nassau appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DiNoto, J.), dated January 21, 1999, which granted the plaintiff's application for leave to serve a late notice of claim upon the County of Nassau pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e(5).

Richard S. Leffer, Chief Deputy County Attorney, Mineola, N Y (Tara Talmadge of counsel), for appellant.

DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., THOMAS R. SULLIVAN, SONDRA MILLER, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, HOWARD MILLER, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion, with costs, and the application is denied.

When a plaintiff is seeking leave to serve a late notice of claim, the court must consider whether the plaintiff has demonstrated a reasonable excuse for his or her failure to serve a timely notice of claim, whether the municipality to be served acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days of its accrual (see, General Municipal Law § 50-e[1]) or a reasonable time thereafter, and whether the delay would substantially prejudice the municipality in maintaining its defense on the merits (see, Matter of Shapiro v. County of Nassau, 208 A.D.2d 545 ; Levette v. Triborough Bridge Tunnel Auth., 207 A.D.2d 330 ; Carbone v. Town of Brookhaven, 176 A.D.2d 778 ).

The plaintiff failed to proffer an adequate explanation for the delay in filing an application for leave to serve a late notice of claim. Furthermore, the County did not have actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days or a reasonable time thereafter, and the delay prejudiced its ability to maintain its defense on the merits (see, Matter of Galluccio v. City of New York, 247 A.D.2d 473 ; Matter of Rudisel v. City of New York, 217 A.D.2d 702 ; Leszczynska v. City of New York, 207 A.D.2d 329 ;Messina v. City of New York, 190 A.D.2d 659 ; Carbone v. Town of Brookhaven, supra; Herman v. Town of Huntington, 173 A.D.2d 681 ).


Summaries of

Fee v. County of Nassau

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 24, 2000
269 A.D.2d 489 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Fee v. County of Nassau

Case Details

Full title:FRANCIS FEE, respondent, v. COUNTY OF NASSAU, appellant, et al., defendants

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Feb 24, 2000

Citations

269 A.D.2d 489 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
703 N.Y.S.2d 261

Citing Cases

White v. New York City Housing Auth

Municipal Law § 50-e; Matter of Welch v. New York City Hous. Auth., 7 AD3d 805; Matter of O'Neal v. New York…

Matter of Siewniak v. City of New York

ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the application is…