Opinion
2011-11-22
In the Matter of Charles DOERSAM, appellant, v. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, respondent.
Koehler & Isaacs LLP, New York, N.Y. (Andrea Koutsoudakis of counsel), for appellant. Christine Malafi, County Attorney, Central Islip, N.Y. (Keith R. McHugh of counsel), for respondent.
Koehler & Isaacs LLP, New York, N.Y. (Andrea Koutsoudakis of counsel), for appellant. Christine Malafi, County Attorney, Central Islip, N.Y. (Keith R. McHugh of counsel), for respondent.
In a proceeding pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50–e(5) for leave to serve a late notice of claim, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, Jr., J.), dated August 18, 2010, 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 for leave to serve a late notice of claim. The petitioner failed to provide a reasonable excuse for his failure to serve a timely notice of claim ( see Matter of Felice v. Eastport/South Manor Cent. School Dist., 50 A.D.3d 138, 147, 851 N.Y.S.2d 218). Moreover, the evidence submitted by the petitioner along with his petition failed to establish that the County of Suffolk had actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting his claims within 90 days following their accrual or a reasonable time thereafter ( see Williams v. Nassau County Med. Ctr., 6 N.Y.3d 531, 536, 814 N.Y.S.2d 580, 847 N.E.2d 1154; Matter of Bush v. City of New York, 76 A.D.3d 628, 629, 906 N.Y.S.2d 597; Matter of Charles v. City of New York, 67 A.D.3d 793, 887 N.Y.S.2d 854). Finally, the petitioner failed to establish that the delay in serving a notice of claim would not substantially prejudice the County ( see Williams v. Nassau County Med. Ctr., 6 N.Y.3d at 539, 814 N.Y.S.2d 580, 847 N.E.2d 1154; Matter of Bush v. City of New York, 76 A.D.3d at 629, 906 N.Y.S.2d 597; Matter of Felice v. Eastport/South Manor Cent. School Dist., 50 A.D.3d at 152–153, 851 N.Y.S.2d 218).