Opinion
October 31, 1988
Appeal from the Court of Claims (Silverman, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
In support of their application to file a late notice of claim, the claimants submitted only the affidavits of their attorney and of one of their attorney's employees. These submissions averred that the reason for the claimants' delay of over nine months in seeking to assert a claim was that their attorney "has only just been retained by the claimants". The attorney's affidavit further alleged that "the claimants do not speak English". These assertions do not constitute reasonable excuses for the delay. Indeed, "[the] asserted inability to secure an attorney is no basis for delay in filing" (Simpson v State of New York, 96 A.D.2d 646), and "[t]he inability to speak or understand English is not a sufficient excuse for a failure to serve a timely notice of claim" (Figueroa v City of New York, 92 A.D.2d 908, 909; see, Torres v City of New York, 50 A.D.2d 826). Hence, the court properly determined that the claimants failed to demonstrate a reasonable and acceptable excuse for their delay.
Moreover, our review of the record leads us to agree with the court's findings that the claimants failed to establish that their claim was meritorious, that adequate and timely notice of the facts surrounding the alleged injury was effectively provided to the respondent, and that no alternative remedy was available (see, Malek v State of New York, 92 A.D.2d 659). Accordingly, we discern no abuse of discretion in the court's denial of the motion. Mangano, J.P., Thompson, Brown and Sullivan, JJ., concur.