| Hendrix v City of New York |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 06409 [76 AD3d 613] |
| August 17, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Michael Hendrix, Appellant, et al., Plaintiff, v City of NewYork, Respondent, et al., Defendants. |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Leonard Koerner, Stephen J.McGrath, and Victoria Scalzo of counsel), for respondent.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for false arrest and malicious prosecution, theplaintiff Michael Hendrix appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County(Kerrigan, J.), entered July 28, 2009, which denied his motion for leave to serve a late notice ofclaim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
In November 2007 the plaintiff Michael Hendrix (hereinafter the plaintiff) filed a timelynotice of claim against the City of New York, alleging, inter alia, claims of false arrest andmalicious prosecution arising out of his arrest on September 30, 2007. On or about December 1,2008, the plaintiff commenced this action asserting, among other things, causes of actionalleging false arrest and/or malicious prosecution against, among others, the City, arising out ofarrests of the plaintiff occurring on July 16, 2007, September 30, 2007, April 22, 2008, May 24,2008, and June 23, 2008. By order to show cause dated December 22, 2008, the plaintiff movedpursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) for leave to serve a late notice of claimupon the City with respect to, inter alia, the causes of action alleged in the complaint arising outof the arrests that occurred on July 16, 2007, April 22, 2008, May 24, 2008, and June 23, 2008.
The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the plaintiff'smotion for leave to serve a late notice of claim. The plaintiff offered no explanation at all for hisdelay in serving a notice of claim, much less a reasonable excuse (see Matter of Castro v Clarkstown Cent.School Dist., 65 AD3d 1141, 1142 [2009]; Matter of King v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 42 AD3d499, 501 [2007]). Moreover, the plaintiff failed to establish that the City had actualknowledge of the essential facts constituting claims within 90 days following their accrual or areasonable time thereafter (see Williamsv Nassau County Med. Ctr., 6 NY3d 531, 536 [2006]; Matter of Griffin v City of New York,69 AD3d 938, 939 [2010]; Matterof Charles v City of New York, 67 AD3d 793 [2009]). Finally, the plaintiff failed toestablish that the delay in serving a notice of claim will not substantially prejudice the City (see Matter of Felice v Eastport/SouthManor Cent. School Dist., 50 AD3d 138, 152-153 [2008]). Dillon, J.P., Balkin, Belenand Lott, JJ., concur.