GONNELLA v. STATE (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

In a claim to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the claimants appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Gina M. Lopez–Summa, J.), dated November 22, 2024.  The order denied the claimants' motion for leave to file a late claim pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10(6).

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, and the claimants' motion for leave to file a late claim pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10(6) is granted.

The claimant Lindsay Gonnella (hereinafter the injured claimant) allegedly was injured on November 1, 2023, when she tripped and fell on a broken metal support pole embedded in a roadway in Hicksville, in the Town of Oyster Bay. The injured claimant, and her husband suing derivatively, filed timely notices of claims against the County of Nassau and the Town and commenced an action against them.  In March 2024, the claimants moved for leave to file a late claim against the State of New York pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10(6), alleging that they recently discovered that the State owned the section of the roadway where the injured claimant fell.  In an order dated November 22, 2024, the Court of Claims denied the motion, finding that, while the other statutory factors were in their favor, the claimants failed to provide a reasonable excuse for the delay in filing the claim and they failed to demonstrate that the claim was meritorious.  The claimants appeal.

In order to assert a claim against the State to recover damages for personal injuries based upon the State's alleged negligence, the claimant must serve the claim or a notice of intention to file a claim within 90 days after the claim accrued (see Court of Claims Act § 10[3] ).  Court of Claims Act § 10(6) permits a court, in its discretion, to allow a claimant to file a late claim, so long as the statute of limitations has not expired.  The statute directs the court to consider, “among other factors, [1] whether the delay in filing the claim was excusable;  [2] whether the state had notice of the essential facts constituting the claim;  [3] whether the state had an opportunity to investigate the circumstances underlying the claim;  [4] whether the claim appears to be meritorious;  [5] whether the failure to file or serve upon the attorney general a timely claim or ․ notice of intention resulted in substantial prejudice to the state;  and [6] whether the claimant has any other available remedy” (id.).

Here, the Court of Claims properly rejected the claimants' contention that they had a reasonable excuse for their failure to serve a claim or notice of intention in a timely fashion, as the mistaken belief that the road upon which the accident occurred was a town road rather than a State highway did not constitute a reasonable excuse for the delay in filing a claim against the State (see Gatti v. State of New York, 90 A.D.2d 840, 840, 456 N.Y.S.2d 82;  see also Grasse v. State of New York, 228 A.D.3d 1028, 1029–1030, 212 N.Y.S.3d 842;  cf.  Weaver v. State of New York, 112 A.D.2d 416, 418, 492 N.Y.S.2d 75).

However, contrary to the conclusion of the Court of Claims, the claimants' submissions were sufficient, at this juncture, to establish that the claims appear to be meritorious within the meaning of Court of Claims Act § 10(6).  “The appearance of merit is a significant factor in the determination of whether to grant leave to file a late claim because ‘it would be futile to permit the filing of a legally deficient claim which would be subject to immediate dismissal, even if the other factors tend to favor the granting of the request’ ” (Swart v. State of New York, 211 A.D.3d 881, 883, 179 N.Y.S.3d 768, quoting Prusack v. State of New York, 117 A.D.2d 729, 730, 498 N.Y.S.2d 455).  Here, notwithstanding the State's contentions regarding certain legal weaknesses in the claimants' causes of action (see id.;  Schnier v. New York State Thruway Auth., 205 A.D.3d 958, 961, 168 N.Y.S.3d 119), the claim is not “ ‘patently groundless, frivolous[,] or legally defective, and the record as a whole ․ give[s] reasonable cause to believe that a valid cause of action exists' ” (Swart v. State of New York, 211 A.D.3d at 883, 179 N.Y.S.3d 768, quoting Sands v. State of New York, 49 A.D.3d 444, 444, 853 N.Y.S.2d 555;  see Tucholski v. State of New York, 122 A.D.3d 612, 612, 996 N.Y.S.2d 97).

Accordingly, as the other enumerated factors were resolved in favor of the claimants, which the State does not dispute, the Court of Claims should have granted the claimants' motion for leave to file a late claim pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10(6).

DILLON, J.P., BRATHWAITE NELSON, LANDICINO and QUIRK, JJ., concur.