Majority
In a proceeding pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) for leave to serve a late notice of claim, the New York City Housing Authority appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lewis, J.), dated May 15, 2015, which granted the petition.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed.
In determining whether leave to serve a late notice of claim
Here, the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his failure to timely serve a notice of claim. The petitioner failed to submit any medical evidence to support his assertion that he was incapacitated to such an extent that he could not have complied with the statutory requirement to timely serve a notice of claim (see Matter of Snyder v County of Suffolk, 116 AD3d 1052 , 1053 [2014]; Matter of Bell v City of New York, 100 AD3d 990 , 991 [2012]; Matter of Wright v City of New York, 66 AD3d 1037 , 1038 [2009]).
Additionally, the petitioner failed to establish that the appellant had actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days after the claim arose or a reasonable time thereafter (see General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]). The petitioner’s assertion that an unspecified representative of Haks Group, Inc. (hereinafter Haks), the company retained by the appellant to oversee the restoration project of the buildings owned by the appellant, was present at the site when the incident occurred, was insufficient to provide the appellant with actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim (see Matter of Anderson v Town of Oyster Bay, 101 AD3d 708 , 709 [2012]; Matter of Casale v City of New York, 95 AD3d 744 , 745 [2012]; Matter of Grant v Nassau County Indus. Dev. Agency, 60 AD3d 946 , 948 [2009]). Furthermore, the incident report filed by Haks with the appellant on the day of the incident did not provide the appellant with actual notice of the petitioner’s claim of negligence by the appellant in the happening of this incident or of the petitioner’s claim that he was injured as a result of the appellant’s alleged negligence (see Matter of Thompson v City of New York, 95 AD3d 1024 , 1025 [2012]; Matter of Taylor v County of Suffolk, 90 AD3d 769 , 770 [2011]; Matter of Groves v New York City Tr. Auth., 44 AD3d 856 , 857 [2007]). Moreover, the petitioner failed to meet his initial burden of showing a lack of prejudice or rebutting the
Accordingly, the petition should have been denied and the proceeding dismissed. Leventhal, J.P., Austin, Roman, Miller and Barros, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- Alvarez v. New York City Housing Authority 97 AD3d 668 at 669 p. 1105
- White v. New York City Housing Authority 38 AD3d 675 at 676 p. 1105
- Snyder v. County of Suffolk 116 AD3d 1052 at 1053 p. 1105
- Bell v. City of New York 100 AD3d 990 at 991 p. 1105
- Wright v. City of New York 66 AD3d 1037 at 1038 p. 1105
- Anderson v. Town of Oyster Bay 101 AD3d 708 at 709 p. 1105
- Casale v. City of New York 95 AD3d 744 at 745 p. 1105
- Grant v. Nassau County Industrial Development Agency 60 AD3d 946 at 948 p. 1105
- Thompson v. City of New York 95 AD3d 1024 at 1025 p. 1105
- Taylor v. County of Suffolk 90 AD3d 769 at 770 p. 1105
- Groves v. New York City Transit Authority 44 AD3d 856 at 857 p. 1105
- Khalid v. City of New York 91 AD3d 779 p. 1106
- Buchanan v. Beacon City School District 79 AD3d 961 at 962 p. 1106