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: Laurianne MARTINEZ, etc., et al., appellants, v. WEST HEMPSTEAD SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., respondents.
In a proceeding pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e(5) for leave to serve a late notice of claim, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Parga, J.), dated February 17, 2005, which denied the application.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The determination to grant leave to serve a late notice of claim lies within the discretion of the court (see General Municipal Law § 50-e[5]; Matter of Andrew T.B. v. Brewster Cent. School Dist., 18 A.D.3d 745, 746, 795 N.Y.S.2d 718; Matter of Morales v. New York City Tr. Auth., 15 A.D.3d 580, 581, 790 N.Y.S.2d 212; Williams v. Nassau County Med. Ctr., 13 A.D.3d 363, 364, 786 N.Y.S.2d 207, lv. granted 5 N.Y.3d 706, 801 N.Y.S.2d 252, 834 N.E.2d 1262). Among the factors to be considered in determining whether to permit service of a late notice of claim are whether (1) the claimant is an infant, (2) the movant has demonstrated a reasonable excuse for failing to timely serve a notice of claim, (3) the municipal defendant acquired actual notice of the claim within 90 days of its accrual or a reasonable time thereafter, and (4) the delay would substantially prejudice the municipal defendant in defending on the merits (see General Municipal Law § 50-e[5]; Matter of Andrew T.B. v. Brewster Cent. School Dist., supra at 746, 795 N.Y.S.2d 718; Williams v. Nassau County Med. Ctr., supra at 364, 786 N.Y.S.2d 207).
Contrary to the petitioner's contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the instant application. The petitioner failed to submit evidence establishing that the respondents had actual knowledge of the claim within 90 days of the incident or within a reasonable time thereafter. Further, the petitioner failed to present a reasonable excuse for the delay, and there was no nexus between the delay and the petitioner's infancy (see generally Matter of Rusiecki v. Clarkstown Cent. School Dist., 227 A.D.2d 493, 643 N.Y.S.2d 132; cf. Matter of Andrew T.B. v. Brewster Cent. School Dist., supra at 747, 795 N.Y.S.2d 718).
The petitioner's remaining contention is academic in light of our determination.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: December 12, 2005
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)