From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mejia v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth.

New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
Feb 20, 2024
224 A.D.3d 546 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)

Opinion

02-20-2024

In the Matter of Noe M. Morales MEJIA, Petitioner–Respondent, v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, et al., Respondents–Appellants, The City of New York, et al., Respondents–Respondents.

Anna J. Ervolina, MTA Law Department, Brooklyn (Timothy J. O’Shaughnessy of counsel), for appellants. Michael H. Zhu, PC, Rego Park (Michael H. Zhu of counsel), for Noe M. Morales Mejia, respondent.


Anna J. Ervolina, MTA Law Department, Brooklyn (Timothy J. O’Shaughnessy of counsel), for appellants.

Michael H. Zhu, PC, Rego Park (Michael H. Zhu of counsel), for Noe M. Morales Mejia, respondent.

Kern, J.P., Singh, Scarpulla, O’Neill Levy, Michael, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Denise M. Dominguez, J.), entered July 15, 2022, which granted petitioner’s motion to serve a late notice of claim on defendants New York City Transit Authority and Metropolitan Transportation Authority, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[1, 2] The court providently exercised its discretion in granting petitioner leave to file a late notice of claim (General Municipal Law § 50–e[5]). The application was made within 14 months of the date of the accident, and petitioner showed that a New York City police officer was present on the scene at the time petitioner was taken to the hospital, a fact not denied by respondents. Thus, respondents had the opportunity to investigate the essential facts in a timely manner, negating any claims of substantial prejudice from the delay in filing the notice of claim (see Matter of Townson v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 158 A.D.3d 401, 404–405, 70 N.Y.S.3d 200 [1st Dept. 2018]).

Given the extent of petitioner’s injuries and their convergence with the COVID–19 pandemic, the court reasonably concluded that she was incapacitated for a significant time, including the two and a half months that she was hospitalized. The court also reasonably concluded that she was unable to obtain counsel and prepare the notice of claim within the requisite time following the accident (see Matter of Newcomb v. Middle Country Cent. Sch. Dist., 28 N.Y.3d 455, 460–461, 45 N.Y.S.3d 895, 68 N.E.3d 714 [2016]).


Summaries of

Mejia v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth.

New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
Feb 20, 2024
224 A.D.3d 546 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)
Case details for

Mejia v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth.

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of Noe M. Morales MEJIA, Petitioner–Respondent, v. NEW YORK…

Court:New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Date published: Feb 20, 2024

Citations

224 A.D.3d 546 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)
224 A.D.3d 546

Citing Cases

Talavera v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth.

Petitioner served respondents only two days after expiration of the 90–day time limit and made the…

Rijos v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth.

The New York City Police Department (N.Y.PD) report on the accident indicated that the investigating officer…