Christopher M. v. Boquet Valley Cent. Sch. Dist.

• Decision Date: 02 December 2021
• Docket Number: 532521
• Parties: In the Matter of CHRISTOPHER M., as Parent and Guardian of B.M., an Infant, Respondent, v. BOQUET VALLEY CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, Formerly Known as Westport Central School District, et al., Appellants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

200 A.D.3d 1176

159 N.Y.S.3d 536

In the Matter of CHRISTOPHER M., as Parent and Guardian of B.M., an Infant, Respondent,

v.BOQUET VALLEY CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, Formerly Known as Westport Central School District, et al., Appellants.

532521

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

Calendar Date: October 15, 2021

Decided and Entered: December 2, 2021

Johnson & Laws, LLC, Clifton Park (Loraine C. Jelinek of counsel), for appellants.

Law Office of Bryan Liam Kennelly, Lake Placid (Bryan Liam Kennelly of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Egan Jr., J.P., Clark, Aarons, Pritzker and Reynolds Fitzgerald, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Aarons, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Bruening, J.), entered May 12, 2020 in Essex County, which partially granted petitioner's application pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50–e (5) for leave to serve a late notice of claim.

In August 2019, petitioner, on behalf of his son, commenced this proceeding seeking leave to serve a late notice of claim upon respondents. According to the notice of claim, the son was a student and a member of the track team at respondent Moriah Central School District (hereinafter Moriah) and was subjected to bullying and harassment at various times between 2016 and 2019. The notice of claim alleged claims of negligent supervision and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Respondents opposed the application. Supreme Court denied the application to the extent that the notice of claim was premised upon alleged harassment and bullying that occurred during the 2018–2019 track season and otherwise granted it. This appeal ensued.

Whether to grant an application for leave to serve a late notice of claim is a matter resting in the discretion of the trial court (see Matter of Kranick v. Niskayuna Cent. Sch. Dist., 151 A.D.3d 1262, 1262, 56 N.Y.S.3d 636 [2017] ; Mindy O. v. Binghamton City School Dist., 83 A.D.3d 1335, 1336, 921 N.Y.S.2d 696 [2011] ). This discretionary determination requires the consideration of various factors, "including whether the respondent[s] had actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim, whether there exists a reasonable excuse for any delay in [serving] the notice of claim and whether the delay has caused substantial prejudice to any defense to the claim" ( Matter of Dewey v. Town of Colonie, 54 A.D.3d 1142, 1142, 863 N.Y.S.2d 849 [2008] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see Babcock v. Walton Cent. Sch. Dist., 119 A.D.3d 1061, 1063, 989 N.Y.S.2d 172 [2014] ). No single factor is determinative, but whether respondents had actual knowledge is a factor that is given great weight (see Matter of Holbrook v. Village of Hoosick Falls, 168 A.D.3d 1263, 1264, 90 N.Y.S.3d 717 [2019] ; Babcock v. Walton Cent. Sch. Dist., 119 A.D.3d at 1063, 989 N.Y.S.2d 172 ).

Supreme Court found that, except for the alleged incidents that occurred in October 2018 and May 2019, respondents had knowledge of the incidents set forth in the notice of claim. The record contains a 2017 letter from the son's mother addressed to Moriah's athletic coordinator and copied to Moriah's superintendent detailing the instances of harassment against the son. A follow-up letter discloses that these instances of alleged bullying were discussed in a meeting with the superintendent, the athletic coordinator and the track coach. The record further discloses that petitioner immediately complained to a faculty member and the track coach about the incidents referenced in the mother's letter. As such, the record supports the court's finding that respondents had knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim (see Matter of C.B. v. Carmel Cent. Sch. Dist., 164 A.D.3d 670, 671, 83 N.Y.S.3d 276 [2018] ; Matter of Cornelius v. Board of Educ. of Delhi Cent. School Dist., 77 A.D.3d 1048, 1049, 911 N.Y.S.2d 481 [2010] ; Matter of Scuteri v. Watkins Glen Cent. School Dist., 261 A.D.2d 779, 780, 689 N.Y.S.2d 751 [1999] ; Matter of Esposito v. Carmel Cent. School Dist., 187 A.D.2d 854, 855, 589 N.Y.S.2d 703 [1992] ).¹

As to the other factors, respondents’ assertion that they were prejudiced due to the passage of time and the departure of employees and students was conclusory, and they failed to make a "particularized evidentiary...