Pazienza v. Westchester Cnty. Health Care Corp.

Full title: In the Matter of Lucille Pazienza, respondent, v. Westchester County…

Court: SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Date published: Aug 24, 2016

2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 5863 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)

Opinion

2014-07340

08-24-2016

In the Matter of Lucille Pazienza, respondent, v. Westchester County Health Care Corporation, appellant.

Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP, White Plains, NY (Robert A. Spolzino and Micah I. Friedberg of counsel), for appellant. Annette G. Hasapidis, South Salem, NY, for respondent.

CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P.

THOMAS A. DICKERSON COLLEEN D. DUFFY HECTOR D. LASALLE, JJ. (Index No. 54370/14)

Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP, White Plains, NY (Robert A. Spolzino and Micah I. Friedberg of counsel), for appellant.

Annette G. Hasapidis, South Salem, NY, for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e(5) for leave to serve a late notice of claim or to deem a late notice of claim timely served, Westchester County Health Care Corporation appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Bellantoni, J.), dated July 1, 2014, which granted the petition and deemed the late notice of claim timely served.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e for leave to serve a late notice of claim upon the appellant or to deem a late notice of claim timely served.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the petition and deeming the late notice of claim to be timely served (see General Municipal Law § 50-e[5]). The petitioner demonstrated a reasonable excuse for her delay in serving a notice of claim, namely, her physical incapacity and her attorney's investigation into the claim (see Matter of Staley v Piper, 285 AD2d 601, 602; Morano v County of Dutchess, 160 AD2d 690, 691-692; Giretti v Greenlawn Fire Dept., 80 AD2d 883, 883-884). Furthermore, the petitioner adequately demonstrated that the appellant would not be substantially prejudiced by the delay (see Matter of Rojas v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 127 AD3d 870, 873; Matter of Levin v County of Westchester, 91 AD3d 646).

CHAMBERS, J.P., DICKERSON, DUFFY and LASALLE, JJ., concur. ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court