Carty v. City of New York

• Decision Date: 17 June 1996
• Citation: 228 A.D.2d 592,644 N.Y.S.2d 635
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Parties: In the Matter of Suzette CARTY, Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Respondents.

Page 635

644 N.Y.S.2d 635

228 A.D.2d 592

In the Matter of Suzette CARTY, Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Respondents.

Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Second Department.

June 17, 1996.

Bernard L. Broome, Kew Gardens, for appellant.

Paul A. Crotty, Corporation Counsel, New York City (Elizabeth S. Natrella of counsel; Jennifer L. Cooper on the brief), for respondents.

In a proceeding pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e(5) for leave to serve a late notice of claim, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.), dated August 22, 1994, which denied her application.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The question of whether to grant leave to serve a late notice of claim is left to the sound discretion of the court (see, Matter of Fok v. City of New York, 224 A.D.2d 693, 638 N.Y.S.2d 924; Matter of Gruber v. City of New York, 156 A.D.2d 450, 548 N.Y.S.2d 911). The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the petitioner's application. The alleged claim accrued in June 1993, and the petitioner failed to present an adequate excuse for her delay in presenting the claim nine months later. Moreover, the delay would substantially prejudice the respondents in maintaining their defense on the merits (see, Matter of Rudisel v. City of New York, 217 A.D.2d 702, 630 N.Y.S.2d 259; Matter of Fok v. City of New York, supra ).

BRACKEN, J.P., and O'BRIEN, GOLDSTEIN and FLORIO, JJ., concur.