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: Patricia TRAYLOR, etc., et al., appellants, v. COMSEWOGUE SCHOOL DISTRICT, respondent.
In a proceeding pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e and Education Law § 3813 for leave to serve a late notice of claim, the petitioners appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Henry, J.), dated May 5, 1998, as denied leave to assert a claim for the decedent's conscious pain and suffering and a derivative claim.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the petitioners leave to assert a claim for the decedent's conscious pain and suffering and a derivative claim (see, e.g., Matter of Rudisel v. City of New York, 217 A.D.2d 702, 630 N.Y.S.2d 259; Carbone v. Town of Brookhaven, 176 A.D.2d 778, 575 N.Y.S.2d 105). The petitioners failed to adequately explain their 15-month delay in moving for leave to serve a late notice of claim (see, e.g., Burns v. New York City Tr. Auth., 213 A.D.2d 300, 624 N.Y.S.2d 30; Matter of O'Mara v. Town of Cortlandt, 210 A.D.2d 337, 620 N.Y.S.2d 82; Chattergoon v. New York City Hous. Auth., 161 A.D.2d 141, 554 N.Y.S.2d 859, affd. 78 N.Y.2d 958, 574 N.Y.S.2d 934, 580 N.E.2d 406). Moreover, as the Supreme Court correctly stated, the fact that the respondent may have learned from the ensuing police investigation and local media reports that the decedent's body had been found on a Friday night in its elementary school yard, did not suffice to put the respondent on notice that it would be charged with responsibility for the decedent's murder (see, e.g., Matter of Lenoir v. New York City Hous. Auth., 240 A.D.2d 497, 658 N.Y.S.2d 140; Matter of DiBella v. City of New York, 234 A.D.2d 366, 650 N.Y.S.2d 311). As the Supreme Court further noted, the respondent would be prejudiced as it would be effectively “cheated * * * of its first year of investigation” (see, e.g., Walston v. City of New York, 229 A.D.2d 485, 486, 645 N.Y.S.2d 513; Pollicino v. New York City Tr. Auth., 225 A.D.2d 750, 751, 640 N.Y.S.2d 168; Steiger v. Board of Educ. for Connetquot Cent. School Dist. of Islip, 192 A.D.2d 517, 595 N.Y.S.2d 827).
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: October 04, 1999
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)