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: Karen KITTREDGE, appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, respondent.
In a proceeding pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e for leave to serve a late notice of claim, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Mason, J.), dated September 15, 1999, which denied the application.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The petitioner alleges that on December 3, 1998, she was caused to slip and fall due to a defective interior ramp at premises owned by the respondent. The respondent was not apprised of the accident until August 1999.
The Supreme Court, in its discretion, may grant an application for leave to serve a late notice of claim (see, General Municipal Law § 50-e [5] ). The key factors which the court must consider are whether the petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim, whether the public corporation acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days of its accrual or a reasonable time thereafter, and whether the delay would substantially prejudice the public corporation in maintaining a defense on the merits (see, Matter of Guiliano v. Town of Oyster Bay, 244 A.D.2d 408, 664 N.Y.S.2d 314).
The delay in serving the notice of claim in this case was the result of law office failure which is not an acceptable excuse for the failure to timely comply with the provisions of General Municipal Law § 50-e (see, Matter of Serrano v. New York City Hous. Auth., 197 A.D.2d 694, 602 N.Y.S.2d 935). Also, contrary to the petitioner's contention, the respondent did not have actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within the appropriate time period (see, Matter of Guiliano v. Town of Oyster Bay, supra). Under the circumstances of this case, the petitioner did not establish that the delay in serving the notice of claim would not substantially prejudice the respondent in maintaining a defense on the merits.
Accordingly, the court providently exercised its discretion in denying the petitioner's application.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
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: September 18, 2000
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)