IN RE: Daniel CONNOLLY (2026)

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Myrna Socorro, J.), entered March 5, 2025, which denied petitioner's motion for leave to file a late notice of claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying leave to file a late notice of claim, as petitioner failed to sustain his burden of establishing that respondent The City of New York had actual knowledge of the essential facts of his claim within 90 days of accrual or within a reasonable time afterward (see Matter of Jaime v. City of New York, 41 NY3d 531, 540 [2024] ).  The police accident report, the record of petitioner's arrest, and the criminal complaint against petitioner did not confer actual knowledge of the essential facts of petitioner's claims;  rather, these documents established only that police officers were present on the scene, and that petitioner's motorcycle crashed into a stopped police vehicle while he was travelling at high speed in the wrong direction.  These assertions are insufficient to establish actual knowledge by the City of the facts alleged in petitioner's notice of claim, as the documents make no mention of acts that would constitute actionable wrongdoing by any police officers (see Matter of Pena v. City of New York, 248 AD3d 657, 658 [1st Dept 2026];  Matter of Kayam v. City of New York, 237 AD3d 474, 475 [1st Dept 2025] ).

In addition, petitioner failed to sustain his burden of showing that the City was not prejudiced by the delay in filing.  To demonstrate absence of prejudice, petitioner relies solely on the City's purported actual knowledge, concluding that because the City had such knowledge, it did not experience substantial prejudice from petitioner's delay in serving the notice of claim.  As stated, however, petitioner failed to sustain his burden of showing that the City had actual knowledge of the essential facts of his claims.  Because petitioner failed to make the required showing, the burden never shifted to the City to make a particularized showing of prejudice (see Matter of Cani v New York City Health & Hosps.  Corp., 242 AD3d 408, 409 [1st Dept 2025] ).

Petitioner did not provide any medical records or other evidence corroborating his claim of incapacity.  As a result, he failed to provide a reasonable excuse for his delay of serving a notice of claim (see Rivera v New York City Dept. of Transp., 235 AD3d 510, 511 [1st Dept 2025] ).  His claim of incapacity is also undercut by his own affidavit, in which he averred that he was still able to attend court appearances and medical treatments, and would have timely served his notice of claim had he been aware of the 90–day requirement.