Opinion
01-26-2015
In re Pedro Luis SOSA, Petitioner–Respondent, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent–Appellant.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Dona B. Morris of counsel), for appellant. Pena & Kahn, PLLC, Bronx (Diane Welch Bando of counsel), for respondent.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Dona B. Morris of counsel), for appellant.
Pena & Kahn, PLLC, Bronx (Diane Welch Bando of counsel), for respondent.
GONZALEZ, P.J., RENWICK, DeGRASSE, MANZANET–DANIELS, GISCHE, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Larry S. Schachner, J.), entered March 19, 2013, which granted petitioner Pedro Luis Sosa's motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
In this action for personal injuries allegedly suffered by petitioner when he was involved in a multi-vehicle accident, although petitioner failed to proffer a reasonable excuse for his delay in timely serving a notice of claim, he has demonstrated that respondent had actual notice of the essential facts constituting his claim (see Thomas v. City of New York, 118 A.D.3d 537, 988 N.Y.S.2d 152 [1st Dept.2014] ; Porcaro v. City of New York, 20 A.D.3d 357, 358, 799 N.Y.S.2d 450 [1st Dept.2005] ). The accident reports of the police department and the records from its Accident Investigations Squad, which include a witness statement from a Department of Sanitation supervisor, sufficiently connected the accident to the City's negligence in maintaining the road. The reports, which show that the incident was caused by an icy condition on the roadway, sufficiently apprised the City of petitioner's negligence claim against it (see Matter of Strauss v. New York City Tr. Auth., 195 A.D.2d 322, 322–323, 600 N.Y.S.2d 32 [1st Dept.1993] ; Matter of Gerzel v. City of New York, 117 A.D.2d 549, 551, 499 N.Y.S.2d 60 [2d Dept.1986] ; Matter of Annis v. New York City
Tr. Auth., 108 A.D.2d 643, 644–645, 485 N.Y.S.2d 529 [1st Dept.1985] ).
Further, any alleged prejudice is undermined by the police department's contemporaneous investigation, which included interviewing witnesses and taking photographs of the location as it existed at the time of the accident (Matter of Caridi v. New
York Convention Ctr. Operating Corp., 47 A.D.3d 526, 849 N.Y.S.2d 261 [1st Dept.2008] ). Although the City might be prejudiced by a delay in seeking witnesses who are knowledgeable about the road maintenance procedures at the time of the accident, road inspection and maintenance records from the Department of Sanitation are available (see Matter of Connaughton v. New York City Tr. Auth., 301 A.D.2d 389, 753 N.Y.S.2d 80 [1st Dept.2003] ).