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: Marie D. Cali, appellant, v. City of Poughkeepsie, et al., respondents.
Submitted—May 11, 2011
DECISION & ORDER
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, Dutchess County (Sproat, J.), dated February 22, 2010, which denied the petition.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the petition. The petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for her failure to serve a timely notice of claim. The petitioner's ignorance of the notice of claim requirement is not a reasonable excuse (see Matter of Padgett v. City of New York, 78 AD3d 949, 950; Matter of Werner v Nyack Union Free School Dist., 76 AD3d 1026). The petitioner's additional excuse, improperly raised for the first time in a reply affirmation (see Troy v. Town of Hyde Park, 63 AD3d 913, 914), that she only recently realized the severity of her injuries, is belied by the record (see Matter of Cuda v Rotterdam–Mohonasen Cent. School Dist., 285 A.D.2d 806, 806–807).
Moreover, the petitioner failed to offer any proof suggesting that the City of Poughkeepsie acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within the 90–day statutory period or within a reasonable time thereafter (see Hebbard v. Carpenter, 37 AD3d 538, 540; Matter of Carpenter v. City of New York, 30 AD3d 594, 595; Matter of Shapiro v. County of Nassau, 208 A.D.2d 545). The petitioner provided only her own unsubstantiated allegations and those of her attorney regarding the contents of a police accident report (see Washington v. City of New York, 72 N.Y.2d 881, 883; State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v New York City Tr. Auth., 35 AD3d 718; Matter of Martinez v. New York City Hous. Auth., 250 A.D.2d 686, 687).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition for leave to serve a late notice of claim.
RIVERA, J.P., ANGIOLILLO, ENG, CHAMBERS and SGROI, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Matthew G. Kiernan
Clerk of 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.
Docket No: 2010–02931 (Index No. 8804 /09)
Decided: May 24, 2011
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)