Opinion
2012-01-31
In the Matter of Wayne S. STOCKLE, et al., appellants, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., respondents.
The Perecman Firm, PLLC, New York, N.Y. (Peter D. Rigelhaupt of counsel), for appellants. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Pamela Seider Dolgow of counsel; Elana Jacob on the brief), for respondents.
The Perecman Firm, PLLC, New York, N.Y. (Peter D. Rigelhaupt of counsel), for appellants. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Pamela Seider Dolgow of counsel; Elana Jacob on the brief), for respondents.
In a proceeding pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50–e(5) for leave to serve a late notice of claim, the petitioners appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kerrigan, J.), dated February 23, 2011, which denied the petition.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the petition for leave to serve a late notice of claim. The petitioners failed to provide a reasonable excuse for their failure to serve a timely notice of claim ( see Matter of Blanco v. City of New York, 78 A.D.3d 1048, 910 N.Y.S.2d 921; Matter of Felice v. Eastport/South Manor Cent. School Dist., 50 A.D.3d 138, 150, 851 N.Y.S.2d 218), and the infancy of one of the petitioners, without any showing of a nexus between the infancy and the delay, was insufficient to constitute a reasonable excuse ( see Robertson v. Somers Cent. School Dist., 90 A.D.3d 1012, 935 N.Y.S.2d 145; Matter of Tonissen v. Huntington U.F.S.D., 80 A.D.3d 704, 705, 915 N.Y.S.2d 296; Matter of Padgett v. City of New York, 78 A.D.3d 949, 950, 912 N.Y.S.2d 75; Grogan v. Seaford Union Free School Dist., 59 A.D.3d 596, 597, 873 N.Y.S.2d 225). Moreover, the petitioners failed to establish that the City had actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting their claims within 90 days following their accrual or a reasonable time thereafter ( see Matter of Rivera v. City of New York, 88 A.D.3d 1004, 1005, 931 N.Y.S.2d 400; Matter of Rodrigues v. Village of Port Chester, 262 A.D.2d 491, 492, 692 N.Y.S.2d 102; Matter of Cuffee v. City of New York, 255 A.D.2d 440, 441, 680 N.Y.S.2d 580). Finally, the petitioners failed to establish that the delay in serving a notice of claim would not substantially prejudice the City ( see Matter of Rivera v. City of New York, 88 A.D.3d at 1005, 931 N.Y.S.2d 400; Matter of Blanco v. City of New York, 78 A.D.3d at 1049, 910 N.Y.S.2d 921).