Matter of Liebman v New York City Dept. of Educ.
2010 NY Slip Op 00154 [69 AD3d 633]
January 5, 2010
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, March 10, 2010


In the Matter of Wayne Liebman, Appellant,
v
New YorkCity Department of Education et al., Respondents.

[*1]Lipsig Shapey Manus & Moverman, P.C. (Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & DeCicco, NewYork, N.Y. [Brian J. Isaac], of counsel), for appellant.

Cozen O'Connor, New York, N.Y. (John J. McDonough, Edward Hayum, and Scott M.Shapiro of counsel), for respondents.

In a proceeding pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) for leave to serve a latenotice of claim, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County(Flug, J.), dated December 15, 2008, which denied the petition.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the petition.First, the petitioner failed to offer a reasonable excuse for his failure to serve a timely notice ofclaim (see Matter of Felice vEastport/South Manor Cent. School Dist., 50 AD3d 138, 150 [2008]; Matter of Doyle v Elwood Union FreeSchool Dist., 39 AD3d 544, 545 [2007]; Matter of Narcisse v Incorporated Vil. of Cent. Islip, 36 AD3d 920[2007]). Additionally, the petitioner failed to establish that any of the respondents had actualknowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days after the claim arose or areasonable time thereafter (see General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]). While thepetitioner alleged that an accident investigation report was provided to him at the job site wherehe was injured several days after the accident, there was no evidence that this report was servedupon any one of the respondents. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to establish that the3½-month delay after the expiration of the 90-day period would not substantially prejudicethe respondents in maintaining their defenses on the merits (see Matter of Felice vEastport/South Manor Cent. School Dist., 50 AD3d at 152-153; Matter of Lorseille vNew York City Hous. Auth., 295 AD2d 612 [2002]; Matter of Sica v Board of Educ. ofCity of N.Y., 226 AD2d 542 [1996]). Fisher, J.P., Santucci, Dickerson, Chambers and Lott,JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.