Kirtley v. Albany County Airport Authority

Decision Date25 November 2009
Docket Number507368.
Citation2009 NY Slip Op 08762,67 A.D.3d 1317,889 N.Y.S.2d 128
PartiesMARCHELLE KIRTLEY et al., Appellants, v. ALBANY COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY et al., Respondents.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (McNamara, J.), entered September 24, 2008 in Albany County, which denied plaintiffs' motion pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) for leave to file a late notice of claim.

Malone Jr., J.

Plaintiff Marchelle Kirtley (hereinafter plaintiff) was injured in June 2007, when she slipped and fell on a wet floor at the Albany International Airport. This action for negligence and loss of consortium was commenced in May 2008, with plaintiffs alleging that defendants' employees or contractors created the hazard by mopping the floor and failed to adequately warn passersby of it. Simultaneously, plaintiffs moved for leave to file a late notice of claim, and they now appeal from Supreme Court's order denying that motion.

Whether to permit the late filing of a notice of claim is a discretionary determination for the trial court, and its decision will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of that discretion (see Matter of Schwindt v County of Essex, 60 AD3d 1248, 1249 [2009]; Matter of Petersen v Susquehanna Val. Cent. School Dist., 57 AD3d 1332, 1333 [2008]). The relevant factors include whether defendants obtained actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days or a reasonable time thereafter, whether plaintiffs offered a reasonable excuse for the delay in filing a claim and whether that delay would substantially prejudice defendants, with no one factor being dispositive (see General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]; Matter of Schwindt v County of Essex, 60 AD3d at 1249; Matter of Heffelfinger v Albany Intl. Airport, 43 AD3d 537, 538 [2007]).

In this case, plaintiff notified defendant Albany County Airport Authority of the accident shortly after it occurred, but the incident report does not describe her accident beyond stating that she "did not know the floor was wet and slipped." Prior to the commencement of this action, defendants were unaware of any facts to suggest that they were responsible for that wet floor or were otherwise liable because of it. As a result, plaintiffs failed to show that defendants "had actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim" (Matter of Petersen v Susquehanna Val. Cent. School Dist., 57...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Concepcion v. Vill. of Johnson City
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • April 1, 2023
    ... ... Index No. EFCA2022002094 Supreme Court, Broome County" April 1, 2023 ...          Unpublished ...   \xC2" ... otherwise liable. See, Kirtley v. Albany County Airport ... Auth.,61 A.D.3d 1317 (3 rd ... ...
  • Perkins v. Albany Port Dist. Comm'n, 529995
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • December 24, 2020
    ...of any facts to suggest that [it was] responsible" for the condition that caused petitioner's fall ( Kirtley v. Albany County Airport Auth., 67 A.D.3d 1317, 1318, 889 N.Y.S.2d 128 [2009] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; Matter of Curiel v. Town of Thurman, 289 A.D.2d 737, 7......
  • In the Matter of Nicole M. Franco v. Town of Cairo
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • August 18, 2011
    ...Bd. of Coop. Educ. Servs., 79 A.D.3d 1405, 1405, 912 N.Y.S.2d 781 [2010]; Kirtley v. Albany County Airport Auth., 67 A.D.3d 1317, 1318–1319, 889 N.Y.S.2d 128 [2009] ). Although we agree with Supreme Court that petitioner did not establish a reasonable excuse for the delay, petitioner suffic......
  • Reinemann v. Vill. of Altamont
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • December 26, 2013
    ...demonstrate that respondents “had actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim” (Kirtley v. Albany County Airport Auth., 67 A.D.3d 1317, 1318–1319, 889 N.Y.S.2d 128 [2009] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see Folmar v. Lewiston–Porter Cent. School Dist., 85......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT