Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Matter of Tia W. TROUTMAN, as Mother and Natural Guardian of Shekeena S.L.S., an Infant, Petitioner-Respondent, v. SYRACUSE HOUSING AUTHORITY, Respondent-Appellant.
Supreme Court abused its discretion in granting petitioner's application for leave to serve a late notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) (see generally Palumbo v. City of Buffalo, 1 A.D.3d 1032, 767 N.Y.S.2d 371). In support of her application, petitioner failed to demonstrate any nexus between the infancy of her daughter, who allegedly was diagnosed with lead poisoning as a result of her exposure to lead paint at premises owned by respondent, and the 15-year delay in seeking leave to serve the late notice of claim. “A delay of service caused by infancy would make a more compelling argument to justify an extension. Conversely, the lack of a causative nexus may make the delay less excusable, but not fatally deficient” (Williams v. Nassau County Med. Ctr., 6 N.Y.3d 531, 538, 814 N.Y.S.2d 580, 847 N.E.2d 1154). Nevertheless, we conclude that the application should have been denied based on petitioner's failure to offer a reasonable excuse or, indeed, any excuse for the 15-year delay in seeking leave to serve a late notice of claim (see Matter of Nairne v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 303 A.D.2d 409, 410, 755 N.Y.S.2d 855; Matter of Ertel v. Town of Amherst, 267 A.D.2d 1024, 700 N.Y.S.2d 903), petitioner's failure to establish that respondent had “ ‘actual knowledge of the essential facts of the claim within the meaning of General Municipal Law § 50-e (5)’ ” (Santana v. Western Regional Off-Track Betting Corp., 2 A.D.3d 1304, 1305, 770 N.Y.S.2d 258, lv. denied 2 N.Y.3d 704, 778 N.Y.S.2d 774, 811 N.E.2d 36), and petitioner's failure to “rebut ․ respondent['s] assertion that the extensive delay in this case substantially prejudiced its ability to investigate and defend against the claim” (Nairne, 303 A.D.2d at 410, 755 N.Y.S.2d 855; see Matter of Landa v. City of New York, 252 A.D.2d 525, 526, 675 N.Y.S.2d 377).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs and the application is denied.
MEMORANDUM:
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: December 22, 2006
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)