| Matter of Mounsey v City of New York |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 09471 [68 AD3d 998] |
| December 15, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Lynn Mounsey, Respondent, v City ofNew York, Respondent, and New York City Housing Authority,Appellant. |
—[*1]
In a proceeding pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) for leave to serve a latenotice of claim, the New York City Housing Authority appeals, as limited by its brief, from somuch of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Velasquez, J.), dated February 24, 2009,as granted that branch of the petition which was for leave to serve a late notice of claim upon it.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretionin granting that branch of the petition which was for leave to serve a late notice of claim uponthe appellant, New York City Housing Authority.
General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) requires the court to consider certain factors indetermining whether to grant leave to serve a late notice of claim, including whether (1) thepetitioner demonstrated a reasonable excuse for failing to serve a timely notice of claim, (2) thepublic corporation acquired actual knowledge of the facts constituting the claim within 90 daysfrom its accrual or a reasonable time thereafter, and (3) the delay would substantially prejudicethe public corporation in maintaining a defense on the merits (see Matter of Wright v City ofNew York, 66 AD3d 1037 [2009]; Matter of Peterson v New York City Dept. of Envtl.Protection, 66 AD3d 1027 [2009]; Matter of Korman v Bellmore Pub. Schools, 62AD3d 882, 883 [2009]).
The appellant failed to sufficiently rebut the petitioner's proof that a copy of a "field report"prepared on the day of the subject accident by the New York City Police Department (hereinafterthe NYPD) was distributed to the appellant's development manager. The field report wassufficient to provide the appellant with timely actual knowledge of the essential facts underlyingthe theory on which liability was predicated in the notice of claim (see Matter of Felice vEastport/South Manor Cent. School Dist., 50 [*2]AD3d 138,148 [2008]; Johnson v New York City Tr. Auth., 278 AD2d 83 [2000]; Caselli v Cityof New York, 105 AD2d 251, 256 [1984]). Furthermore, the petitioner showed that the delaydid not substantially prejudice the appellant since, in addition to the field report, the NYPDprepared, on the day of the accident, a line-of-duty injury report, a witness's statement, and anaided report worksheet (see Matter of Felice v Eastport/South Manor Cent. School Dist.,50 AD3d at 152-153; Matter of Caridi v New York Convention Ctr. Operating Corp., 47AD3d 526 [2008]; Matter of Hursala v Seaford Middle School, 46 AD3d 892, 893[2007]; Flynn v City of Long Beach, 94 AD2d 713 [1983]). Moreover, the petitionertook photographs of the defective stairwell within 90 days after the accident (see Matter ofRuffino v City of New York, 57 AD3d 550, 552 [2008]; Barnes v New York City Hous.Auth., 262 AD2d 46, 47 [1999]; Lozada v City of New York, 189 AD2d 726, 727[1993]).
Finally, as there was actual notice and an absence of prejudice, the lack of a reasonableexcuse does not bar the granting of leave to serve a late notice of claim upon the appellant(see Matter of Rivera-Guallpa v County of Nassau, 40 AD3d 1001, 1002 [2007];Montero v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 17 AD3d 550 [2005]; Matter ofHendershot v Westchester Med. Ctr., 8 AD3d 381, 382 [2004]). Rivera, J.P., Covello,Angiolillo, Leventhal and Roman, JJ., concur.