Meehan v. City of New York

• Decision Date: 24 June 2002
• Citation: 744 N.Y.S.2d 484,295 A.D.2d 581
• Parties: THOMAS G. MEEHAN et al., Respondents,<BR>v.<BR>CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Defendants, and<BR>NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

295 A.D.2d 581

744 N.Y.S.2d 484

THOMAS G. MEEHAN et al., Respondents,

v. CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Defendants, andNEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Appellant.

Decided June 24, 2002.

Ritter, J.P., Feuerstein, O'Brien, H. Miller and Townes, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion, with costs, the plaintiffs' motion is denied, the separate motion of the defendant New York City Transit Authority is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against that defendant, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs' motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim almost 15 months after the subject incident. In determining whether to grant leave to serve a late notice of claim, a court should consider whether the municipality acquired actual knowledge of the facts constituting the claim within 90 days from its accrual or a reasonable time thereafter, whether the movant has demonstrated a reasonable excuse for failing to serve a timely notice of claim, and whether the delay would substantially prejudice the municipality in maintaining its defense on the merits (see General Municipal Law § 50-e [1] [a]; [5]; Matter of Resto v City of New York, 240 AD2d 499, 500; Matter of Deegan v City of New York, 227 AD2d 620).

The plaintiffs failed to offer a reasonable excuse for the delay of nearly one year and three months in requesting permission to serve a late notice of claim. Furthermore, the "telephone report of accident, claim & no-fault" completed shortly after the accident did not provide the defendant New York City Transit Authority (hereinafter the Authority) with actual notice of the essential facts constituting the plaintiffs' claim since it failed to suggest any connection between the happening of the accident and any alleged negligence in the ownership, operation or control of the Authority's bus (see Rabanar v City of Yonkers, 290 AD2d 428; Mack v City of New York, 265 AD2d 308; Saafir v Metro-North Commuter R.R. Co., 260 AD2d 462, 463; Doherty v City of New York, 251 AD2d 368; Matter of Guiliano v Town of Oyster Bay, 244 AD2d 408; Matter of Resto v City of New York, supra; Finneran v City of New York, 228 AD2d 596). Finally, the plaintiffs' delay in seeking leave to serve a late notice of claim prejudiced the Authority's ability to maintain a defense on the merits (see Saafir v Metro-North Commuter R.R....