New York Personal Injury Lawyer Blog 24/7
In cases involving claims against public entities in New York, adhering to procedural requirements is critical. The case involving petitioners who sought to file late notices of claim against Suffolk County highlights these requirements. The petitioners alleged contamination of their drinking water due to chemicals originating from firefighting foam used at a county-owned facility. The central issue before the court was whether the petitioners should be permitted to file late notices of claim against Suffolk County under General Municipal Law § 50-e(5).
Background Facts
In July 2016, Suffolk County issued a news release advising property owners near the Gabreski Airport in Southampton that their private wells might be contaminated with toxic chemicals, including PFOS and PFOA. These chemicals were linked to firefighting foam used at the airport, which was owned and operated by the county.
The contamination prompted the petitioners, whose properties were affected, to take legal action. On February 6, 2017, they sought leave to file late notices of claim against the county, alleging that its negligence in operating the airport caused the contamination. The notices were required under General Municipal Law § 50-e, which mandates that claimants serve such notices within 90 days of their claim arising.
Initially, the petitioners failed to meet the filing deadline. They argued that they only became aware of the contamination when the county issued its advisory in July 2016. Despite this, the Supreme Court of Suffolk County denied their petition to file late notices of claim, citing an insufficient excuse for the delay. The petitioners subsequently renewed their petition, but the court adhered to its earlier decision, effectively dismissing the matter. The petitioners then appealed the denial.
Question Before the Court
The primary question before the court was whether the petitioners should be allowed to file late notices of claim against Suffolk County. The court needed to consider several factors, including:
- Whether the county had timely and actual knowledge of the claim’s essential facts.
- Whether the delay in serving the notices substantially prejudiced the county’s ability to defend itself.
- Whether the petitioners provided a reasonable excuse for their delay.
Court’s Decision
Upon reviewing the facts, the appellate court reversed the Supreme Court’s decision and granted the petitioners leave to serve late notices of claim. The court found that Suffolk County had acquired actual knowledge of the contamination and its connection to the airport. The county had issued public advisories and conducted related investigations, demonstrating its awareness of the situation.
Additionally, the court concluded that the delay did not substantially prejudice the county. The petitioners had filed their late notices only a few months after the 90-day deadline, and the county was already aware of the contamination’s impact through its prior investigations and 30 other similar claims filed earlier. The appellate court also noted that while the petitioners lacked a reasonable excuse for their delay, this factor was not determinative when weighed against the lack of prejudice and the county’s actual knowledge.
Discussion
The appellate court considered the statutory framework under General Municipal Law § 50-e(5), which gives courts discretion to allow late filings of notices of claim. The court emphasized the importance of actual knowledge and the absence of prejudice when granting such petitions.
The court determined that Suffolk County had actual knowledge of the contamination shortly after its discovery. The county issued public advisories warning of potential health risks, conducted investigations into the source of the contamination, and initiated hearings related to similar claims. This demonstrated that the county was well aware of the events underlying the petitioners’ claims.
The court found no substantial prejudice to the county’s ability to defend itself. The county’s early involvement in addressing the contamination, coupled with its investigations and prior related claims, ensured that relevant evidence was preserved. The short delay in filing the notices further minimized any potential prejudice.
While the petitioners argued that they were unaware of the county’s involvement until its public advisories were issued, the court deemed this an insufficient excuse for their delay. However, the court clarified that the absence of a reasonable excuse does not automatically bar relief under General Municipal Law § 50-e(5) if the other factors—actual knowledge and lack of prejudice—are satisfied.
Conclusion
This case underscores the importance of timely notice in claims against public entities. However, it also demonstrates the court’s willingness to grant relief when procedural delays are outweighed by evidence of actual knowledge and minimal prejudice to the public entity.
If you are considering filing a claim against a public entity in New York or have questions about notices of claim, it is important to consult an experienced personal injury lawyer. Contact Stephen Bilkis & Associates to discuss your case and explore your legal options.