Zarrello v. City of New York, 61 N.Y.2d 628 (1983)
A court may deny an application for leave to file a late notice of claim against a municipality if the delay substantially prejudices the municipality’s ability to maintain a defense on the merits.
Summary
Mildred Zarrello was injured in a fall on a public sidewalk in New York City. She failed to serve a notice of claim on the City within the 90-day statutory period. More than a year later, she applied for leave to file a late notice of claim. The Supreme Court initially granted the application, but the Appellate Division reversed, finding that the delay substantially prejudiced the City’s ability to defend the claim. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the Appellate Division did not abuse its discretion in finding substantial prejudice due to the extended delay, lack of initial notice to the city, and the nature of the claim involving a sidewalk condition.
Facts
On December 21, 1979, Mildred Zarrello fell on a public sidewalk outside Long Island City Hospital in Brooklyn, New York. Zarrello did not serve a notice of claim on the City of New York within the 90-day period required by General Municipal Law section 50-e. The accident was not reported to the police.
Procedural History
Plaintiffs filed an application on March 17, 1981, for leave to file a late notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law section 50-e(5). The Supreme Court granted the application and adhered to its decision upon reargument. The Appellate Division reversed, holding that the delay substantially prejudiced the City in maintaining its defense on the merits. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the Appellate Division abused its discretion in denying the plaintiffs’ application for leave to file a late notice of claim against the City of New York, based on a finding of substantial prejudice due to the delay.
Holding
No, because the City received no notice of the accident until well after the statutory notice period had expired, and the nature of the claim (defective sidewalk and accumulation of ice and snow) required a timely investigation, which was substantially compromised by the delay.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision, emphasizing that the Appellate Division has discretion in determining whether a delay in filing a notice of claim has substantially prejudiced the municipality. The court noted that the City received no notice of the accident until one year and 87 days after it occurred, and the accident was not reported to the police. The plaintiff’s claim was based on the defective state of the sidewalk and the accumulation of ice and snow. Because the City had no opportunity to investigate the scene until nearly a year after the notice period had run, the court found a sufficient basis for the Appellate Division to conclude that the City’s defense had been substantially compromised. The court cited Mills v. County of Monroe, 59 N.Y.2d 307, 310-311, in support of its holding.