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.
Darryl ALLADICE, Petitioner–Appellant, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Respondents–Respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael D. Stallman, J.), entered June 14, 2012, which denied petitioner's motion for leave to file an untimely notice of claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Petitioner's application for leave to file a late notice of claim was properly denied. Respondent the City of New York is an out-of-possession landlord that does not have responsibility for the allegedly hazardous condition of the subway platform, and therefore, petitioner's claim against it lacks merit (see Arteaga v. City of New York, 101 AD3d 454, 454 [1st Dept 2012] ). In addition, contrary to petitioner's contention, law office failure does not constitute a reasonable excuse for failing to timely serve the notice of claim (see Matter of Santiago v. New York City Tr. Auth., 85 AD3d 628, 628–629 [1st Dept 2011] ).
Although the absence of a reasonable excuse does not compel denial of the motion (see Brennan v. Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 110 AD3d 437, 2013 N.Y. Slip Op 06326, *1 [1st Dept 2013] ), petitioner also fails to demonstrate that respondents had actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within the statutory 90–day period or within a reasonable time thereafter (see id.; Gonzalez v. City of New York, 92 AD3d 619 [1st Dept 2012] ). Petitioner's assertion that respondents' employees observed his fall is speculative since he averred in his affidavit that no one came to his aid and he does not suggest that an employee acknowledged witnessing the accident (see e.g. Lemma v. Off Track Betting Corp., 272 A.D.2d 669, 671 [3d Dept 2000]; Burns v. New York City Tr. Auth., 213 A.D.2d 300, 300–301 [1st Dept 1995] ).
Lastly, petitioner's unsupported assertion that the condition which caused his accident has remained unchanged since his fall is insufficient to demonstrate the lack of any prejudice to NYCTA from his delay (see Matter of Santiago v. New York City Tr. Auth., 85 AD3d 628, 628–629 [1st Dept 2011] ).
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: November 14, 2013
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)