Opinion
15984 Index No. 806290/21E Case No. 2021–02848
05-19-2022
In the Matter of Luis JAIME, Petitioner–Respondent, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent–Appellant.
Georgia M. Pestana, Corporation Counsel, New York (Lorenzo Di Silvio of counsel), for appellant. Sim & DePaola, LLP, Bayside (Sang J. Sim of counsel), for respondent.
Georgia M. Pestana, Corporation Counsel, New York (Lorenzo Di Silvio of counsel), for appellant.
Sim & DePaola, LLP, Bayside (Sang J. Sim of counsel), for respondent.
Manzanet–Daniels, J.P., Gische, Kern, Friedman, Shulman, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mitchell J. Danziger, J.), entered June 2, 2021, which granted the petition for leave to file a late notice of claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Petitioner claims that from June 21, 2019 to October 8, 2020, in five separate incidents, he was attacked and assaulted by correction officers and/or inmates while incarcerated at Rikers Island. Petitioner moved for permission to file late notices of claim for each of the five incidents.
Respondent's claimed lack of actual knowledge is refuted by the fact that the officers who allegedly assaulted petitioner or witnessed the incidents would, as respondent's employees, have had immediate knowledge of the events giving rise to this dispute (see Matter of Orozco v. City of New York, 200 A.D.3d 559, 560, 161 N.Y.S.3d 1 [1st Dept. 2021] ; Matter of Ansong v. City of New York, 308 A.D.2d 333, 333, 764 N.Y.S.2d 182 [1st Dept. 2003] ). In light of respondent's knowledge of petitioner's claims, no prejudice would result if petitioner were permitted to file a late notice of claim (see Matter of Orozco, 200 A.D.3d at 563, 161 N.Y.S.3d 1 ). Furthermore, respondent has failed to make a particularized showing that the delay caused it substantial prejudice. Respondent's arguments as to the issue of reasonable excuse are unpreserved and, in any event, a lack of a reasonable excuse is not, standing alone, sufficient to deny an application for leave to serve and file a late notice of claim (see Renelique v. New York City Hous. Auth., 72 A.D.3d 595, 596, 899 N.Y.S.2d 232 [1st Dept. 2010] ).