Supreme Court Clears Up Confusion and Holds It’s a Reasonable Excuse
Procedural History & Facts:
In a recent decision, the Supreme Court, New York County granted plaintiff’s motion to deem late service of a notice of claim nunc pro tunc[1] pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e(5).
In Sanchez-Pesantez v. City of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 3469(U), plaintiff alleged he sustained personal injuries as a result of a construction-related accident at a construction site as part of the City College of New York campus. Plaintiff alleges violations of New York Labor Laws §§ 200, 240(1) and 241(6) against the City of New York and Dormitory Authority of the State of New York.
Plaintiff conducted a search of property records, which indicated that the premises were owned by the City of New York, though subsequent discovery revealed conflicting information regarding ownership, with DASNY identified as the record owner and the City as a potential managing entity. Plaintiff initially served timely notices of claim against the City of New York, but due to the confusion, served a notice of claim 335 days after the incident on DASNY. We note the General Municipal Law requires a Notice of Claim be filed within 90 days after the claim arises.
GML § 50-e(5) governs applications for leave to serve a late notice of claim, and directs the Court to consider (1) whether the claimant has a reasonable excuse for the delay, (2) whether the municipality or its agents acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts within 90 days or a reasonable time thereafter, and (3) whether the delay substantially prejudiced the municipality in its ability to defend on the merits.
In its decision, the Supreme Court, New York County, found that plaintiff’s confusion was reasonable under the circumstances and that DASNY had actual knowledge of the accident, as it was reported to its agent on the day of the occurrence and DASNY was actively involved in workers’ compensation proceedings concerning the same incident. DASNY was also unable to establish it was substantially prejudiced by the late notice and then granted the plaintiff’s motion.
Commentary:
It’s important to note that while a late notice of claim may seem fatal to a cause of action, there are, as with all things in the law (usually), exceptions.
The Sanchez-Pesantez decision can be found here.
For additional information, contact Philip D. Priore, Esq. and/or Michael J. Shields, Esq.
This article was prepared by McCormick & Priore, P.C. to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is in no way intended to provide legal advice or to create an attorney-client relationship. All Rights Reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of McCormick & Priore, P.C.
[1] A fancy Latin phrase that means “now for then” and is used to describe a retroactive effect of something.
