In personal injury cases involving public corporations, filing a timely notice of claim is a mandatory step for initiating a lawsuit. When this timeline is missed, petitioners may seek permission from the court to file a late notice of claim. The case of Marando v. City of N.Y., 66 Misc. 3d 1225 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2020) provides a clear illustration of how courts evaluate such petitions.
Background Facts
On September 26, 2018, Domenico Marando, a carpenter employed by Skanska, was working on the renovation of subway walls on the Coney Island-bound N-Line train track. During his work, an electrical explosion occurred, throwing him ten feet and causing injuries to his neck, right shoulder, and left knee. He was immediately transported by ambulance to Maimonides Hospital.
The explosion prompted an investigation by the respondents, Skanska and related parties, regarding the circumstances of the incident. On October 16, 2018, Marando retained legal counsel to pursue workers’ compensation benefits for his injuries. However, he was unaware of the statutory 90-day deadline for filing a notice of claim against a public corporation as required under General Municipal Law § 50-e(1)(a).
On December 11, 2019, Marando initiated a special proceeding seeking permission to file a late notice of claim, citing the public corporations’ alleged negligence in maintaining the worksite, which led to the explosion and his injuries.
Question Before the Court
Whether the court should permit Marando to file a late notice of claim under General Municipal Law § 50-e(5). This required the court to evaluate whether:
- The public corporation had actual knowledge of the essential facts of the claim within 90 days of the incident or a reasonable time thereafter.
- The delay in filing the notice of claim prejudiced the respondents’ ability to defend against the claim.
- Marando provided a reasonable excuse for the delay.
Court’s Decision
The court granted Marando’s petition to file a late notice of claim. The decision was based on the following findings:
- The respondents had actual knowledge of the essential facts of the claim shortly after the incident. Their investigation into the explosion and Marando’s immediate transport to the hospital provided them with sufficient notice of potential liability.
- The court determined that Marando’s delay did not substantially prejudice the respondents. The evidence and circumstances surrounding the explosion were preserved through their investigation, mitigating any potential prejudice caused by the delay.
- Although Marando failed to offer a reasonable excuse for the delay, the court ruled that the absence of a reasonable excuse was not determinative in light of the other factors.
Discussion
Under General Municipal Law § 50-e, individuals pursuing claims against public entities must serve a notice of claim within 90 days of the incident. Courts, however, have discretion to grant permission for late filings when warranted by specific circumstances. Factors considered include:
- Whether the public corporation had timely, actual knowledge of the facts constituting the claim.
- Whether the delay prejudiced the public corporation’s ability to defend itself.
- Whether the petitioner had a reasonable excuse for the delay.
The Court of Appeals’ decision in Newcomb v. Middle Country Cent. Sch. Dist. , 28 NY3d 455, 460—61 (2016) clarified that the petitioner must initially show that the late notice would not substantially prejudice the public corporation. Once the petitioner makes this showing, the burden shifts to the public corporation to present evidence demonstrating prejudice.
- Actual Knowledge of the Claim
Marando demonstrated that the public corporations were immediately aware of the explosion and the resulting injuries. The respondents’ own investigation and knowledge of Marando’s transport from the scene established that they had actual knowledge of the essential facts. - Substantial Prejudice
The court found no evidence that the late notice of claim prejudiced the public corporations. The investigation conducted by the respondents shortly after the explosion ensured the preservation of key evidence. Since the public corporations failed to present specific evidence of prejudice, the court concluded that they were not hindered in preparing a defense. - Reasonable Excuse for the Delay
While Marando did not provide a strong excuse for failing to meet the 90-day deadline, the court emphasized that this factor is not dispositive. The lack of prejudice to the respondents and their actual knowledge of the claim outweighed this consideration.
The respondents’ opposition consisted primarily of legal arguments and procedural claims, without providing substantive evidence to rebut Marando’s assertions. The court found that the respondents failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or to contest Marando’s claims regarding their actual knowledge of the incident.
Conclusion
The court’s decision highlights the discretionary power of courts to permit late notices of claim when certain conditions are met. Despite the statutory deadlines, exceptions may be granted if the public corporation had timely, actual knowledge of the claim and if the delay does not prejudice its defense.
For individuals injured in incidents involving public entities, navigating the procedural requirements of filing a notice of claim can be complex. Consulting an experienced personal injury lawyer is critical to ensuring compliance with the law and protecting your legal rights. If you or someone you know has been injured and needs legal assistance, contact Stephen Bilkis & Associates today for a consultation.