Matter of O’Neil v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corp., 47 N.Y.2d 929 (1979)

When a claim for conscious pain and suffering accrues to the injured party who dies before the notice of claim deadline, the court has discretion to grant an extension for filing a late notice of claim, even if the reason for the delay is unrelated to the death.

Summary

The case concerns a proceeding brought by an administrator seeking leave to serve a late notice of claim on the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, involving both wrongful death and conscious pain and suffering causes of action. The Court of Appeals addressed the applicability of General Municipal Law § 50-e(5)(1) and (2) to these distinct claims. The court held that while the administrator’s delay in filing the wrongful death claim was not excusable under the statute, the Appellate Division did not abuse its discretion in allowing the late notice of claim for conscious pain and suffering because the injured party’s death occurred before the expiration of the filing deadline, and no nexus between the death and the delay was required.

Facts

The administrator sought permission to file a late notice of claim against the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, encompassing causes of action for both wrongful death and the decedent’s conscious pain and suffering prior to death. The specific facts underlying the medical malpractice claim are not detailed in the opinion, the focus being on the procedural issue of the late notice.

Procedural History

The administrator initiated a proceeding under General Municipal Law § 50-e for leave to serve a late notice of claim. The Supreme Court denied the motion. The Appellate Division reversed the trial court’s decision regarding the conscious pain and suffering claim, finding the denial to be an improvident exercise of discretion. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the court had discretionary power under General Municipal Law § 50-e(5)(1) to grant an extension for filing a late notice of claim for wrongful death when the claimant administrator was neither an infant nor incapacitated.

2. Whether the court had discretionary power under General Municipal Law § 50-e(5)(2) to grant an extension for filing a late notice of claim for conscious pain and suffering when the injured party died before the expiration of the time limited for service of the notice, regardless of the reason for the delay.

Holding

1. No, because the claimant administrator was not an infant or incapacitated, and therefore did not meet the requirements of General Municipal Law § 50-e(5)(1).

2. Yes, because under General Municipal Law § 50-e(5)(2), there is no requirement to establish a nexus between the excuse for the delay and the death of the injured party when the death occurred before the notice deadline.

Court’s Reasoning

The court distinguished between the wrongful death action and the action for conscious pain and suffering based on who the claim accrued to. The wrongful death action accrues to the personal representative, while the action for conscious pain and suffering accrues to the injured party. Regarding the wrongful death claim, the court found that the administrator did not meet the requirements of either paragraph (1) or (2) of General Municipal Law § 50-e(5). The administrator was not an infant or incapacitated under paragraph (1), nor was the administrator deceased under paragraph (2). Therefore, the court had no discretion to grant an extension for the wrongful death claim.

Regarding the conscious pain and suffering claim, because the injured party died before the expiration of the time limited for service of notice, paragraph (2) was applicable. The court emphasized that paragraph (2) does not require a nexus between the excuse for the delay and the death. The court stated, “We emphasize the fact that under paragraph (2) there is no requirement to establish a nexus between the excuse and the untimeliness. Therefore, the trial court had the discretion to grant an extension despite the fact that the excuse was totally unrelated to the disability.” The Appellate Division considered the illness of counsel and the lack of prejudice to the defendant, concluding that the trial court’s refusal to grant an extension was an abuse of discretion. The Court of Appeals found that the Appellate Division did not abuse its discretion in reversing the trial court on the conscious pain and suffering claim.