Opinion
2003-04016.
Decided April 5, 2004.
In a proceeding pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e(5) for leave to serve a late notice of claim, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hart, J.), dated March 19, 2003, which granted the application.
Herzfeld Rubin, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Herbert Rubin, David B. Hamm, and Linda M. Brown of counsel), for appellant.
Jonah Grossman, New York, N.Y. (Lawrence B. Lame of counsel), for respondents.
Before: MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P., ANITA R. FLORIO, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, WILLIAM F. MASTRO, 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.
The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the petitioners' application for leave to serve a late notice of claim since the petitioners did not demonstrate a reasonable excuse for their failure to timely serve a notice of claim, the appellant did not acquire actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days after the claim arose or a reasonable time thereafter, and the appellant would be prejudiced by the lengthy delay ( see Matter of Termini v. Valley Stream Union Free School Dist. No. 13, 2 A.D.3d 866; Matter of Di Fusco v. Mahopac School Dist. of Town of Carmel, N.Y., 299 A.D.2d 544; Irizarry v. Ying-Choi Lee, 258 A.D.2d 619).
In any event, the Supreme Court had no authority to grant leave to serve a late notice of claim individually to the petitioner Relaya Howell, as the application was made after the expiration of the statute of limitations applicable to her individual cause of action ( see Pierson v. City of New York, 56 N.Y.2d 950; Matter of Turner v. New York City Hous. Auth., 243 A.D.2d 636).
ALTMAN, J.P., FLORIO, LUCIANO and MASTRO, JJ., concur.