| Kirtley v Albany County Airport Auth. |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 08762 [67 AD3d 1317] |
| November 25, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| Marchelle Kirtley et al., Appellants, v Albany County AirportAuthority et al., Respondents. |
—[*1] Bond Schoeneck & King, P.L.C.C., Albany (Stuart F. Klein of counsel), forrespondents.
Malone Jr., J. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (McNamara, J.), enteredSeptember 24, 2008 in Albany County, which denied plaintiffs' motion pursuant to GeneralMunicipal Law § 50-e (5) for leave to file a late notice of claim.
Plaintiff Marchelle Kirtley (hereinafter plaintiff) was injured in June 2007, when she slippedand fell on a wet floor at the Albany International Airport. This action for negligence and loss ofconsortium was commenced in May 2008, with plaintiffs alleging that defendants' employees orcontractors created the hazard by mopping the floor and failed to adequately warn passersby ofit. Simultaneously, plaintiffs moved for leave to file a late notice of claim, and they now appealfrom Supreme Court's order denying that motion.
Whether to permit the late filing of a notice of claim is a discretionary determination for thetrial court, and its decision will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of that discretion (seeMatter of Schwindt v County of Essex, 60 AD3d 1248, 1249 [2009]; Matter of Petersenv Susquehanna Val. Cent. School Dist., 57 AD3d 1332, 1333 [2008]). The relevant factorsinclude whether defendants obtained actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting theclaim within 90 days or a reasonable time thereafter, whether plaintiffs offered a reasonableexcuse for the delay in filing a claim and whether [*2]that delaywould substantially prejudice defendants, with no one factor being dispositive (seeGeneral Municipal Law § 50-e [5]; Matter of Schwindt v County of Essex, 60AD3d 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 accidentshortly after it occurred, but the incident report does not describe her accident beyond statingthat 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 orwere otherwise liable because of it. As a result, plaintiffs failed to show that defendants "hadactual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim" (Matter of Petersen vSusquehanna Val. Cent. School Dist., 57 AD3d at 1334; see Troy v Town of HydePark, 63 AD3d 913, 914 [2009]; Matter of Heffelfinger v Albany Intl. Airport, 43AD3d at 539; Johnson v Katonah-Lewisboro School Dist., 285 AD2d 490, 490 [2001];Matter of Raczy v County of Westchester, 95 AD2d 859 [1983]). Further, plaintiffs donot explain why they failed to timely file a notice of claim. Under these circumstances, wecannot say that Supreme Court abused its discretion in denying plaintiffs' motion andaccordingly affirm.
Mercure, J.P., Rose, Lahtinen and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed,without costs.