| Matter of Farfan v City of New York |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 08307 [101 AD3d 714] |
| December 5, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Juan Farfan, Appellant, v City of NewYork, Respondent. |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Ronald E. Sternberg ofcounsel; Addar Weintraub on the brief), for respondent.
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(Kerrigan, J.), entered December 7, 2011, which, in effect, denied the petition and dismissed theproceeding.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in, in effect, denying the petition forleave to serve a late notice of claim and dismissing the proceeding. General Municipal Law§ 50-e (7) provides, in pertinent part, "[w]here the application is for leave to serve a latenotice of claim, it shall be accompanied by a copy of the proposed notice of claim." Here, noproposed notice of claim was submitted with the petition. This was sufficient justification byitself to deny the petition (see General Municipal Law § 50-e [7]; Matter of Estate of Curreri v New YorkCity Hous. Auth., 87 AD3d 1064, 1065 [2011]; Matter of Narcisse v Incorporated Vil. of Cent. Islip, 36 AD3d 920,922 [2007]; Matter of Scott vHuntington Union Free School Dist., 29 AD3d 1010, 1010 [2006]). In any event, thepetitioner proffered no excuse for his failure to serve a timely notice of claim (see Matter ofEstate of Curreri v New York City Hous. Auth., 87 AD3d at 1065; Matter of Grant v Nassau County Indus.Dev. Agency, 60 AD3d 946, 947 [2009]; Matter of Gillum v County of Nassau,284 AD2d 533 [2001]). Moreover, although a police accident report was filed regarding thesubject accident, the police accident report did not of itself provide actual knowledge to the Cityof the essential facts constituting the claim (see Hardayal v City of New York, 281 AD2d593 [2001]; Matter of Dominguez v City of New York, 272 AD2d 326, 327 [2000];Matter of Vitali v City of New York, 205 AD2d 636 [1994]; Matter of Dube v City ofNew York, 158 AD2d 457, 458 [1990]; Caselli v City of New York, 105 AD2d 251,255 [1984]). Finally, the petitioner failed to establish that the City will not be substantiallyprejudiced in maintaining its defense on the merits as a result of the more than five-month delaybetween the date of the petitioner's accident and the commencement of this proceeding for leaveto serve a late notice of claim (seeMatter of Felice v Eastport/South Manor Cent. School Dist., 50 AD3d 138, 153 [2008];Matter of Yearusskaya v New York City Tr. Auth., 279 AD2d 583 [2001]). Rivera, J.P.,Dickerson, Leventhal and Lott, JJ., concur.