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.
IN RE: Judy COOK, Petitioner–appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, Respondent–respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Naita A. Semaj, J.), entered February 22, 2024, which denied petitioner's motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying petitioner's motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim (see General Municipal Law § 50–e [1], [5]; Matter of Newcomb v. Middle Country Cent. Sch. Dist., 28 N.Y.3d 455, 460–461, , 45 N.Y.S.3d 895, 68 N.E.3d 714 [2016] ). Petitioner did not meet her burden to show a reasonable excuse for her delay in filing a notice of claim against respondent New York City Housing Authority (N.Y.CHA). Petitioner's argument that she was focused on her physical recovery is not a reasonable excuse given her testimony that she was living alone without assistance and scheduling doctors' appointments by telephone (see Rivera v. New York City Dept. of Transp., 235 A.D.3d 510, 511, 229 N.Y.S.3d 8 [1st Dept 2025] ). Moreover, because the medical records end August 18, 2023, petitioner fails to establish any physical incapacity or impairment covering the two months preceding the October 16, 2023 deadline to file a notice of claim or the four months between the date of the last medical record and her service of the late notice of claim on NYCHA in late December 2023 (id.).
Petitioner also failed to meet her burden to show that NYCHA acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting her claim within 90 days of the accident or a reasonable time thereafter (see Cassidy v. New York City Tr. Auth., 238 A.D.3d 484, 485, 235 N.Y.S.3d 267 [1st Dept 2025] ). That petitioner served an untimely notice of claim on NYCHA after the 90–day statutory time period expired did not establish that NYCHA had actual knowledge of the claims because “[t]his late service, without leave of court, was a nullity” (id.).
In view of the foregoing, the issue of whether NYCHA has been substantially prejudiced by the delay need not be reached (see Matter of Braddy v. New York City Hous. Auth., 241 AD3d 1117, 1118, 242 N.Y.S.3d 567 [1st Dept 2025] ).
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.
Docket No: Index No. 800882 /24
Decided: March 03, 2026
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First 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)