Matter of Nieves v. New York Health and Hospitals Corporation
Decision Date | 21 November 2006 |
Docket Number | 8568.,8569N. |
Parties | In the Matter of LUZ NIEVES et al., Respondents, v. NEW YORK HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION, Appellant. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
The intent underlying the notice of claim requirement embodied in General Municipal Law § 50-e is to protect the municipality from unfounded claims and to ensure that it has an adequate opportunity to timely explore the merits of the claim while the facts are still "fresh" (Adkins v City of New York, 43 NY2d 346, 350 [1977]; Torres v New York City Hous. Auth., 261 AD2d 273, 274 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 816 [1999]). General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) bestows upon the court the discretion to either grant or deny leave to serve a late notice of claim, within certain parameters (Matter of Porcaro v City of New York, 20 AD3d 357, 358 [2005]; Matter of Dubowy v City of New York, 305 AD2d 320, 321 [2003]), and some of the key factors to be considered by the court when exercising its discretion are: whether the petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable excuse for failing to file the notice of claim within the statutory time frame; whether the public corporation acquired actual notice of the essential facts within 90 days after the claim arose or a reasonable time thereafter; and whether the delay would substantially prejudice the municipality in defending on the merits (Powell v City of New York, 32 AD3d 227, 228 [2006]; Matter of Lodati v City of New York, 303 AD2d 406, 407 [2003]). Moreover, the presence or absence of any one factor is not determinative (Matter of Semyonova v New York City Hous. Auth., 15 AD3d 181, 182 [2005]; Matter of Dubowy v City of New York, 305 AD2d at 321), and the fact that a claimant is an infant does not, by itself, compel the granting of leave to file a late notice of claim (Williams v Nassau County Med. Ctr., 6 NY3d 531, 537-538 [2006]; Matter of Dumancela v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 32 AD3d 515, 516 [2006]).
In the matter at bar, petitioner failed to establish that her delay of approximately one year in seeking leave to serve a late notice of claim was the product of her daughter's infancy, or of the need to provide her with extraordinary care (id.; Berg v Town of Oyster Bay, 300 AD2d 330 [2002]).
Further, with regard to petitioners' claim that respondent acquired actual knowledge of the facts within 90 days, or a reasonable time thereafter, based upon its possession of the relevant medical records, the Court of Appeals has recently stated that:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Antoinette C. v. Cnty. of Erie
...N.Y. , 148 A.D.3d 909, 911, 49 N.Y.S.3d 539 [2d Dept. 2017] ; see 163 N.Y.S.3d 351 Matter of Nieves v. New York Health & Hosps. Corp. , 34 A.D.3d 336, 337, 825 N.Y.S.2d 40 [1st Dept. 2006] ; Matter of Drozdzal v. Rensselaer City School Dist. , 277 A.D.2d 645, 646, 716 N.Y.S.2d 435 [3d Dept.......
-
Kelley v. N.Y. City Health and Hospitals Corp.
...added]; see also Delgado v. City of New York, 39 A.D.3d 387, 833 N.Y.S.2d 509 [2007]; Matter of Nieves v. New York Health & Hosps. Corp., 34 A.D.3d 336, 338, 825 N.Y.S.2d 40 [2006] ). In Delgado, this Court stressed that the "Fire Department's ambulance report contained no information from ......
-
Antoinette C. v. Cnty. of Erie
...of Ramos v Board of Educ. of the City of N.Y., 148 A.D.3d 909, 911 [2d Dept 2017]; see Matter of Nieves v New York Health & Hosps. Corp., 34 A.D.3d 336, 337 [1st Dept 2006]; Matter of Drozdzal v Rensselaer City School Dist., 277 A.D.2d 645, 646 [3d Dept 2000]; see generally Matter of Klimen......
-
Antoinette C. v. Cnty. of Erie
...of Ramos v Board of Educ. of the City of N.Y., 148 A.D.3d 909, 911 [2d Dept 2017]; see Matter of Nieves v New York Health & Hosps. Corp., 34 A.D.3d 336, 337 [1st Dept 2006]; Matter of Drozdzal v Rensselaer City School Dist., 277 A.D.2d 645, 646 [3d Dept 2000]; see generally Matter of Klimen......