| Godfrey v City of New Rochelle |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 05359 [74 AD3d 1018] |
| June 15, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Margaret Godfrey, Appellant, v City of New Rochelle,Respondent. |
—[*1] Kathleen E. Gill, New Rochelle, N.Y., for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by herbrief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.),entered June 19, 2009, as denied her motion pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5)to deem her notice of claim timely served, nunc pro tunc.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion todeem her notice of claim timely served, nunc pro tunc. The plaintiff's excuse for failing to timelyserve a notice of claim, that she expected her injury to heal quickly, is unacceptable withoutsupporting medical evidence explaining why the seriousness of the injury took so long tobecome apparent (see Matter of Felice vEastport/South Manor Cent. School Dist., 50 AD3d 138, 151 [2008]; Matter ofLodati v City of New York, 303 AD2d 406, 407 [2003]; Matter of Eaddy v County ofNassau, 282 AD2d 675 [2001]; Matter of Plantin v New York City Hous. Auth., 203AD2d 579, 580 [1994]). Furthermore, the plaintiff's asserted unawareness of the limits on hermedical coverage is also unavailing (seeAnderson v City Univ. of N.Y. at Queens Coll., 8 AD3d 413 [2004]).
Additionally, the defendant did not acquire actual knowledge of the essential factsconstituting the claim within 90 days of its accrual or a reasonable time thereafter. The plaintiffalleged that she "called [the defendant] shortly after [her] accident to tell them about [her]injury." Even if true, mere general knowledge that an injury has occurred is insufficient toprovide the requisite notice (see Matterof Castro v Clarkstown Cent. School Dist., 65 AD3d 1141, 1142 [2009]; Matter ofFelice v Eastport/South Manor Cent. School Dist., 50 AD3d at 148; Matter of Scott v Huntington Union FreeSchool Dist., 29 AD3d 1010, 1011 [2006]). Finally, the plaintiff offered no evidence torebut the defendant's contention that the two-month delay after the expiration of the 90-dayperiod in serving the notice of claim and the further seven-month delay in moving to deem thenotice of claim timely served would substantially prejudice its ability to conduct an investigationof the claim (see Matter of Lorseille v New York City Hous. Auth., 295 AD2d 612[2002]; Matter of DiBella v City of New York, 234 AD2d 366, 367 [1996]; Matter ofSosa v City of New York, 206 AD2d 374 [1994]). Rivera, J.P., Florio, Dickerson, Chambersand Lott, JJ., concur.