Opinion
14376 Index No. 156802/20 Case No. 2021-01052
10-14-2021
In the Matter of Dwayne SINGLETON, Petitioner–Appellant, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent–Respondent.
Sim & DePaola, Bayside (Sang J. Sim of counsel), for appellant. Georgia M. Pestana, Corporation Counsel, New York (Daniel Matza–Brown of counsel), for respondent.
Sim & DePaola, Bayside (Sang J. Sim of counsel), for appellant.
Georgia M. Pestana, Corporation Counsel, New York (Daniel Matza–Brown of counsel), for respondent.
Kapnick, J.P., Singh, Shulman, Pitt, Higgitt, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Arthur F. Engoron, J,), entered on or about September 22, 2020, which denied the petition for leave to file a late notice of claim and dismissed the proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The court providently exercised its discretion in denying leave to file a late notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50–e (5), almost one year after the criminal charges against petitioner were dismissed. In the proposed notice of claim, petitioner contends, inter alia, that he was falsely arrested, was subjected to assault, and was injured due to respondent's negligent hiring, training and supervision of employees of the Police Department. Petitioner failed to provide a reasonable excuse for the almost one-year delay in filing a notice of claim, and he did not submit an affidavit detailing his efforts to retain counsel (see Lerner v. State of New York, 72 A.D.3d 406, 407, 897 N.Y.S.2d 100 [1st Dept. 2010], lv denied 15 N.Y.3d 703, 2010 WL 2572046 [2010] ). Nor did petitioner demonstrate that respondent had actual knowledge of the essential facts within the statutory period. Actual knowledge of the circumstances constituting petitioner's claims may not be imputed to respondent based solely on the ground that its employees arrested him (see Matter of Rivera v. New York City Hous. Auth., 25 A.D.3d 450, 451, 807 N.Y.S.2d 373 [1st Dept. 2006] ; Olivera v. City of New York, 270 A.D.2d 5, 6, 704 N.Y.S.2d 42 [1st Dept. 2000] ; Walker v. New York City Tr. Auth., 266 A.D.2d 54, 698 N.Y.S.2d 460 [1st Dept. 1999] ). Furthermore, petitioner did not sustain his initial burden of demonstrating that respondent was not substantially prejudiced by the significant delay (see generally Matter of Townson v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 158 A.D.3d 401, 404, 70 N.Y.S.3d 200 [1st Dept. 2018] ).