Majority
p. 962In the Matter of Wayne S. Stockle et al., Appellants, v City of New York et al., Respondents. [937 NYS2d 609]
The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the petition for leave to serve a late notice of claim. The petitioners failed to provide a reasonable excuse for their failure to serve a timely notice of claim (see Matter of Blanco v City of New York, 78 AD3d 1048 [2010]; Matter of Felice v Eastport/South Manor Cent. School Dist., 50 AD3d 138 , 150 [2008]), and the infancy of one of the petitioners, without any showing of a nexus between the infancy and the delay, was insufficient to constitute a reasonable excuse (see Robertson v
p. 963
Somers Cent. School Dist., 90 AD3d 1012 [2011]; Matter of Tonissen v Huntington U.F.S.D., 80 AD3d 704 , 705 [2011]; Matter of Padgett v City of New York, 78 AD3d 949 , 950 [2010]; Grogan v Seaford Union Free School Dist., 59 AD3d 596 , 597 [2009]). Moreover, the petitioners failed to establish that the City had actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting their claims within 90 days following their accrual or a reasonable time thereafter (see Matter of Rivera v City of New York, 88 AD3d 1004 , 1005 [2011]; Matter of Rodrigues v Village of Port Chester, 262 AD2d 491 , 492 [1999]; Matter of Cuffee v City of New York, 255 AD2d 440 , 441 [1998]). Finally, the petitioners failed to establish that the delay in serving a notice of claim would not substantially prejudice the City (see Matter of Rivera v City of New York, 88 AD3d at 1005 ; Matter of Blanco v City of New York, 78 AD3d at 1049). Rivera, J.R, Eng, Chambers, Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- Blanco v. City of New York 78 AD3d 1048 p. 962
- Felice v. Eastport/South Manor Central School District 50 AD3d 138 at 150 p. 962
- Robertson v. Somers Central School District 90 AD3d 1012 p. 963
- Tonissen v. Huntington U.F.S.D. 80 AD3d 704 at 705 p. 963
- Padgett v. City of New York 78 AD3d 949 at 950 p. 963
- Rivera v. City of New York 88 AD3d 1004 at 1005 p. 963