Opinion
2011-09-20
In the Matter of ESTATE OF Josephine CURRERI, appellant,v.NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, respondent.
Philip J. Rizzuto, P.C., Carle Place, N.Y. (Kristen N. Reed of counsel), for appellant.Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, New York, N.Y. (Patrick J. Lawless and Richard E. Lerner 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, Kings County (Solomon, J.), dated July 15, 2010, which denied the petition.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The petition for leave to serve a late notice of claim was made about 1 year and 10 months after the subject accident occurred, and about 8 months after the appointment of an administrator of the Estate of Josephine Curreri. The papers submitted in support of the petition did not contain a proposed notice of claim, which was not in compliance with General Municipal Law § 50–e(7). This alone was a sufficient basis upon which to deny the petition ( see General Municipal Law § 50–e[7]; Matter of Narcisse v. Incorporated Vil. of Cent. Islip, 36 A.D.3d 920, 922, 829 N.Y.S.2d 578; Matter of Scott v. Huntington Union Free School Dist., 29 A.D.3d 1010, 1010, 816 N.Y.S.2d 165; Losavio v. Stein, 98 A.D.2d 742, 469 N.Y.S.2d 447).
Furthermore, the petitioner failed to establish that the respondent had actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within the time specified in General Municipal Law § 50–e(1)(a) or within a reasonable time thereafter, and that the delay would not substantially prejudice the respondent in maintaining its defense on the merits ( see General Municipal Law § 50–e[5]; Nappi v. County of Suffolk, 79 A.D.3d 990, 992, 914 N.Y.S.2d 247; Matter of Felice v. Eastport/South Manor Cent. School Dist., 50 A.D.3d 138, 153, 851 N.Y.S.2d 218; Matter of Acosta v. City of New York, 39 A.D.3d 629, 630, 834 N.Y.S.2d 267). Moreover, the petitioner failed to proffer a reasonable excuse for the delay ( see Matter of Grant v Nassau County Indus. Dev. Agency, 60 A.D.3d 946, 947, 875 N.Y.S.2d 556; Matter of Gillum v. County of Nassau, 284 A.D.2d 533, 726 N.Y.S.2d 458; Matter of Deegan v. City of New York, 227 A.D.2d 620, 643 N.Y.S.2d 596).
SKELOS, J.P., ANGIOLILLO, LOTT and ROMAN, JJ., concur.