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: Sammie SHEFF, Respondent, v. COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER, Appellant, et al., Defendant.
In a proceeding pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e(5) for leave to serve a late notice of claim, the County of Westchester appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Barone, J.), entered November 16, 1999, which granted the petition.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, as a matter of discretion, with costs, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed.
On May 6, 1999, the respondent Sammie Sheff, an inmate at the Westchester County Jail, was burned with scalding water he was using to clean a floor. Over five months later, Sheff commenced this proceeding for leave to serve a late notice of claim on the appellant.
We agree with the appellant that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting Sheff's application for leave to serve a late notice of claim. Sheff did not seek leave to serve a late notice of claim until more than five months after the accident, and he failed to proffer any excuse for the delay (see, Mack v. City of New York, 265 A.D.2d 308, 696 N.Y.S.2d 206).
Furthermore, there is no evidence that the appellant acquired actual knowledge of the facts constituting the negligent supervision claim within 90 days or a reasonable time thereafter so as to obviate any prejudice. While the appellant's employee filled out a special report two days after the incident, the form indicated only that Sheff had burned himself. This form cannot fairly be said to have apprised the appellant of the claim that the appellant negligently failed to supervise Sheff's work (see, Matter of Ryder v. Garden City School District, 277 A.D.2d 388, 716 N.Y.S.2d 97).
Accordingly, the appellant had no reason to conduct a prompt investigation into the purported negligence, and it would be prejudiced if compelled to prepare a defense to the claim at this late date (see, Matter of Morrison v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 244 A.D.2d 487, 664 N.Y.S.2d 342). Given these circumstances, the Supreme Court should have denied the petition.
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: January 29, 2001
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)