From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Facey v. City of N.Y.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
May 10, 2017
150 A.D.3d 826 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)

Opinion

05-10-2017

Juniepa FACEY, etc., appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., defendants, Nassau County, et al., respondents.

Stewart Law Firm, PLLC, Rosedale, NY (Charmaine M. Stewart and Nadira S. Stewart of counsel; Tarik A. Stewart on the brief), for appellant. Carnell T. Foskey, County Attorney, Mineola, NY (Robert F. Van der Waag and Christi Kunzig of counsel), for respondents.


Stewart Law Firm, PLLC, Rosedale, NY (Charmaine M. Stewart and Nadira S. Stewart of counsel; Tarik A. Stewart on the brief), for appellant.

Carnell T. Foskey, County Attorney, Mineola, NY (Robert F. Van der Waag and Christi Kunzig of counsel), for respondents.

CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P., SANDRA L. SGROI, COLLEEN D. DUFFY, and BETSY BARROS, JJ.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for wrongful death, etc., the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Flug, J.), dated May 6, 2015, as denied that branch of her motion which was for leave to serve a late notice of claim against the defendants Nassau County, Nassau County Police Department, Nassau County Emergency Medical Services, Clarence Hudson, Estate of Artie Lopez, and "John Doe" 1–100.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

On October 23, 2012, the plaintiff's decedent, Raymond Facey, was shot and killed by nonparty Darrell Fuller. On October 22, 2014, the plaintiff, individually and as the administrator of the decedent's estate, commenced this action against various municipal entities and their employees by filing a summons with notice and contemporaneously moving for leave to serve and file a late notice of claim. The plaintiff alleged, inter alia, that the defendants were negligent "in their failure to follow proper procedures and protocol when officers gave chase to [Fuller] despite being directed not to do so." The Supreme Court, inter alia, denied the plaintiff's motion on the basis that she failed to demonstrate that the defendants acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts underlying her claims within the requisite time period. The plaintiff appeals from so much of the Supreme Court's order as denied that branch of her motion which was for leave to serve a late notice of claim against the defendants Nassau County, Nassau County Police Department, Nassau County Emergency Medical Services, Clarence Hudson, Estate of Artie Lopez, and "John Doe" 1–100 (hereinafter together the Nassau County defendants).

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in finding that the plaintiff provided a reasonable excuse for her failure to serve a timely notice of claim (see generally Matter of Staley v. Piper, 285 A.D.2d 601, 602, 728 N.Y.S.2d 88 ). However, the plaintiff failed to establish that the Nassau County defendants had actual knowledge of the "essential facts constituting the claim" (General Municipal Law § 50–e[5] ). Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the fact that the Nassau County defendants investigated the decedent's murder does not establish that they acquired any knowledge of the alleged causal relationship between that murder and any negligence on their part (see Chattergoon v. New York City Hous. Auth., 161 A.D.2d 141, 142, 554 N.Y.S.2d 859, affd. 78 N.Y.2d 958, 574 N.Y.S.2d 934, 580 N.E.2d 406 ; compare Matter of Murray v. County of Suffolk, 128 A.D.3d 700, 6 N.Y.S.3d 487, with Matter of Lenoir v. New York City Hous. Auth., 240 A.D.2d 497, 658 N.Y.S.2d 140, Matter of Plantin v. New York City Hous. Auth., 203 A.D.2d 579, 611 N.Y.S.2d 28, and Matter of Russ v. New York City Hous. Auth., 198 A.D.2d 361, 603 N.Y.S.2d 338 ).

Moreover, the plaintiff failed to come forward, prima facie, with "some evidence or plausible argument that supports a finding of no substantial prejudice" (Matter of Newcomb v. Middle Country Cent. Sch. Dist., 28 N.Y.3d 455, 466, 45 N.Y.S.3d 895, 68 N.E.3d 714 ).

The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for leave to serve a late notice of claim against the Nassau County defendants.


Summaries of

Facey v. City of N.Y.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
May 10, 2017
150 A.D.3d 826 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
Case details for

Facey v. City of N.Y.

Case Details

Full title:Juniepa FACEY, etc., appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., defendants…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: May 10, 2017

Citations

150 A.D.3d 826 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
150 A.D.3d 826
2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 3733

Citing Cases

Nunez v. Vill. of Rockville Ctr.

The reports and other documentation prepared by the NCPD and the Nassau County District Attorney's Office…

Nicholson v. City of N.Y.

We disagree with the Supreme Court's conclusion that the City acquired actual knowledge of the essential…