DOMINIC PARTON PLAINTIFF RESPONDENT v. ONONDAGA COUNTY DEFENDANT APPELLANT ET AL DEFENDANTS

Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

DOMINIC R. PARTON, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. ONONDAGA COUNTY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

CA 10-01281

Decided: February 18, 2011

PRESENT:  SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, CARNI, SCONIERS, AND GORSKI, JJ. GORDON J. CUFFY, COUNTY ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (MARY J. FAHEY OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. SUGARMAN LAW FIRM, LLP, SYRACUSE (AMY M. VANDERLYKE OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum:  Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in granting plaintiff's application seeking leave to serve a late notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5).   Plaintiff offered a reasonable excuse for failing to serve the notice of claim within the statutory 90-day period (see § 50-e [1][a];  see generally Matter of LaMay v County of Oswego, 49 AD3d 1351, 1352, lv denied 10 NY3d 715).   Contrary to defendant's contention, plaintiff “made a persuasive showing that [Onondaga County (defendant) ] ‘acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim’ ․ [, and defendant has] made no particularized or persuasive showing that the delay caused [it] substantial prejudice” (Wetzel Servs.   Corp. v. Town of Amherst, 207 A.D.2d 965;  see Matter of Rodriguez v Western Regional Off-Track Betting Corp., 74 AD3d 1811).

Patricia L. Morgan

Clerk of the Court