Court allowed late claims against Suffolk County for well water contamination linked to airport operations. Brooks v. Cnty. of Suffolk, 177 A.D.3d 969 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)

In a case involving claims of water contamination, the Supreme Court of Suffolk County faced the question of whether to grant a late notice of claim against a public entity. This case centered on residents whose well water was allegedly contaminated due to the County of Suffolk’s operation of Gabreski Airport. The petitioners sought permission to file late notices of claim after learning about the contamination. The court ultimately ruled in favor of the petitioners, allowing them to proceed.

Background Facts
The petitioners were property owners in areas near Gabreski Airport, operated by Suffolk County. On July 22, 2016, the County released a notice warning residents about potential contamination in private wells. The contamination involved toxic chemicals, specifically perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), which were reportedly linked to firefighting foam used at the airport.

The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation had previously designated the airport as a hazardous site due to its threat to public health and the environment. Many residents relied on private wells for drinking water, and the contamination posed significant risks.

The petitioners discovered the contamination through the County’s warning and sought legal recourse. However, because they had not filed their notices of claim within the statutory 90-day period, they were required to seek the court’s permission to file late notices.

Question Before the Court
The court had to decide whether the petitioners should be allowed to file late notices of claim under General Municipal Law § 50–e(5). This required examining whether:

The County had actual knowledge of the essential facts within 90 days of the claim arising.
The delay in filing substantially prejudiced the County’s ability to defend the claims.
The petitioners provided a reasonable excuse for their delay.

Court’s Decision
The court reversed its earlier rulings and granted the petitioners leave to serve late notices of claim. It concluded that the County had actual knowledge of the contamination within the statutory period due to its own investigation and public notices. Furthermore, the court found that the County was not substantially prejudiced by the petitioners’ delay and that the absence of a reasonable excuse did not bar relief.

Discussion
The decision rested on key factors outlined in General Municipal Law § 50–e(5):

Actual Knowledge:
The court emphasized that the County was aware of the contamination within the 90-day window. The County had conducted investigations, issued public warnings, and held hearings regarding similar claims. These actions demonstrated that the County had timely knowledge of the events underlying the petitioners’ claims.
Prejudice to the County:
The petitioners argued that their late notices did not hinder the County’s ability to defend itself. The County had already gathered evidence, including environmental reports and internal investigations. The court found that the County failed to provide specific evidence showing how the delay caused substantial prejudice.
Reasonable Excuse:
Although the petitioners did not provide a strong excuse for missing the 90-day deadline, the court noted that a lack of reasonable excuse is not always fatal. When other factors, such as actual knowledge and lack of prejudice, are present, the court can still grant relief. In this case, the petitioners demonstrated that the County was fully informed about the contamination and its potential liability.

Conclusion
This case highlights the court’s discretion in allowing late notices of claim when public entities have timely knowledge of the facts and are not prejudiced by delays. For residents affected by environmental hazards, the decision highlights the importance of seeking legal advice promptly when pursuing claims against government entities.

If you or a loved one have experienced personal injury due to environmental contamination or other causes, contact Stephen Bilkis & Associates. Our experienced New York personal injury lawyers are here to guide you through the legal process and help you protect your rights. Call us today for a consultation.