Legal Document: In The Matter Of The Claim Of Hilda Altagracia Guzman v. The City Of New York

On September 15, 2023 a ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - CONFORMED COPY was filed involving a dispute between In The Matter Of The Claim Of Hilda Altagracia Guzman, and The City Of New York, for Special Proceedings - Other (Trip and Fall) in the District Court of Queens County.

Preview
11/20/2023 01:13
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 11/21/2023 04:44 PM INDEX NO. 719177/2023

LED
44
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45
ENS C L,ERK 1
RECEIVED
TNDEX NO. '719111/2023
NYSCEF: 11/20/2023
11/21/2023

NYSCEE DOC. NO. 33 RECEIVED NY-cCEI: 11/14l202

SEQUENCE 4
At an IAS Part I 0 of the Supreme Courl ol'the
State of New York held in and for the
County ofQueens at 88- I I Sut phin Boulevard.
Jamaica- New York on the flpfday of
2023

PRESENT: HON. KEVIN J. KERRIGAN,JSC
X Index No.7l9l77/2023
In the Matter of the Claim of

HIt-DA ALl'AGRACIA GUZMAN.
ORDERTO SHOW
Petit ioner. CAUSE

-against-

THE CITY OF NEW YORK.

Respondent.
x
Upon the annexed affirmation of Brian J. Isaac, Esq. dated the l4th day ofNovember 2023,

and upon all the pleadings, proceedings and exhibits heretofore had herein,

LETthe respondent, The City of New York, show cause at an IAS Part lO of this Court

at 88- I I Sutphin Boulevard, Jamaica, New York, on the {KSday ot .N)-o-c ,J',,. ZOZ: at

9:30 o'clock in the forenoon of that day, or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard, why an order

should not be made and entered herein:

Ial pursuant to GML S50-(e)(5), permitting petitioner to serve a late notice
of claiml in the form annexed; and

Ibl granting anv other relicf decmed just, proper bl this Court.

Sufllcient reason appearing therefor,

I i\nnercd hcrelo as Exhibit
H

11of
of152
2
11/20/2023 01:13
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 11/21/2023 04:44 PM INDEX NO. 719177/2023
44
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 NO.'7191"t1
rNDEXNYSCEF:
RECEIVED /2023
11/20/2023
11/21/2023
s
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 33 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/14l2023

LET service ofa copy of this order to show cause, together with copies ofthe papers upon

which it is granted, upon respondent at 100 Church Street. New York' New York. by
service, on or before the,L8l?ay o t |1la*" P*2023, be considered

and sufficient service.

Dated: Jamaica, New York
2023

ENTER:

,t.s.c.
11/20/2023
RW

22of
of152
2
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 11/21/2023 01:13 PM INDEX NO. 719177/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/21/2023

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF QUEENS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------X Index No. 719177/2023
In the Matter of the Claim of

HILDA ALTAGRACIA GUZMAN,
AFFIRMATION IN
Petitioner, SUPPORT

-against-

THE CITY OF NEW YORK,
Respondents.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------X

Brian J. Isaac, Esq., an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the State of New York,

hereby affirms under the penalties of perjury, the truth of the following statements:

1. I am a member of the law firm of Pollack Pollack Isaac & DeCicco, LLP, special

counsel to Subin Associates, LLP (“Subin”), attorneys for the petitioner Hilda Altagracia Guzman

(“Ms. Guzman” or “petitioner”), in the above-captioned matter. I am fully familiar with the facts

and circumstances of this case based upon a review of the file maintained by my office.

2. I submit the within affirmation in support of the instant application seeking leave

to file late notices of claim, in connection with an accident that occurred on September 27, 2022,

in front of the premises located at 119-11 233rd Street, in Queens, New York, in the County of

Queens, State of New York. Petitioner tripped and fell on a mis-level and broken sidewalk in front

of the above premises. Attached as Exhibit B are 101 photographs of the defect taken on October

10, 2022 that caused petitioner’s accident.

3. Petitioner attaches the following exhibits in support of the instant motion:

Exhibit A: Copy of Orders to Show Cause dated September 28, 2023, October
24, 2023, and October 31, 2023 which the Court declined to sign
without prejudice.

Exhibit B: Photographs.

3 of 152
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 11/21/2023 01:13 PM INDEX NO. 719177/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/21/2023

Exhibit C: Subin’s Initial Intake Questionnaire completed on October 4, 2022.

Exhibit D: Affirmation of Arnold Baum, Esq.

Exhibit E: Affirmation of Robert J. Eisen, Esq.

Exhibit F: Affidavit of Jada Seeram.

Exhibit G: Affidavit of Danny Batista.

Exhibit H: Amended Notice of Claim filed and served on dated November 2,
2023.

Exhibit I: Affidavit of Hilda Altagracia Guzman.

4. Upon several declinations of petitioner’s order to show cause (Exhibit A) and

receiving instruction by the Court, we are now refiling the Order to Show Cause with the proper

exhibits. The basis for the petition for leave to serve a late notice of claim is set forth below.

5. Petitioner initially contacted Subin on October 4, 2022, to retain their services to

represent her in connection with the accident that occurred on September 27, 2022 (Exhibit C).

6. Thereafter, as confirmed by the affidavit of Danny Batista (Exhibit G), on

November 18, 2022, he went to the subject premises and took the photographs which detail the

defects in the subject sidewalk (Exhibit B).

7. As set forth in the affidavit of Jada Seeram (Exhibit F), she was assigned to review

the petitioner’s file, as part of Subin’s Investigation Team. She conducted property searches and

tax searches and ultimately reviewed the photographs taken by Mr. Batista. However, she failed

to identify the premises as a one, two or three family residence and therefore did not alert the

appropriate Subin team members that the City of New York was a necessary defendant.

8. The affirmation of Arnold Baum (Exhibit D), Chief Operating Officer at Subin,

explains the procedures that are followed when a new case is opened. As set forth in Mr. Baum’s

4 of 152
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 11/21/2023 01:13 PM INDEX NO. 719177/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/21/2023

affirmation, the error here was not discovered until April 14, 2023, when Robert Eisen, the firm’s

managing attorney, was first alerted to the issue.

9. Mr. Eisen confirms the information in Mr. Baum’s affirmation (Exhibit E) that the

error was not discovered until April 14, 2023, when Mr. Eisen was alerted to the issue. A notice

of claim was then filed, albeit late, on April 20, 2023. 1

10. It is axiomatic that the service and filing of a notice of claim is a condition precedent

to commencement of an action against a municipal defendant (GML §50-e(1)(a); Barchet v.

NYCTA, 20 NY2d 1 [1967]; Gold v. New York, 80 AD2d 138 [1st Dept. 1981]; Visconti v. New

York, 45 AD2d 480 [1st Dept. 1974]). It is well-settled that the purpose of a notice of claim is to

enable the municipality to conduct a prompt and effective investigation of any and all potential

claims while all the facts and circumstances are fresh and similar to those which existed on the

date of the accident. A.R. v. Urrutia, 212 AD3d 670, 671 [2d Dept. 2023]; Adkins v. New York,

43 NY2d 346 [1977]; Mitchell v. New York, 131 AD2d 313 [1st Dept. 1987]; Mazza v. New York,

112 AD2d 921 [2d Dept. 1985]. Courts have theorized that a municipality must be given “an

adequate opportunity to investigate the accident and to explore the merits of the claim while the

information is readily available” (Caselli v. New York, 105 AD2d 251 [2d Dept. 1984]).

11. The sole purpose of a notice of claim is to permit the “prompt investigation and

preservation of evidence of the facts and circumstances out of which the claims arise” (see, Beary

v. Rye, 44 NY2d 398, 412 [1978], quoting 21st Annual Report of NY Judicial Conference, 1976,

p. 302; Adkins, supra, at 350; Winbush v. Mt. Vernon, 306 NY 327, 333 [1954]).

1
Importantly, while delay in moving to serve a late notice of claim can serve as a basis to deny such a motion where
the municipality rejected a notice of claim that was filed after the 90-day period expired (see, Matter of Ortiz v.
Westchester County, 208 AD3d 487 [2d Dept. 2022]), here, the respondent accepted the notices of claim. Any delay
by counsel in moving for leave to serve the notices of claim was based on counsel’s internal investigation to determine
why a timely notice of claim was not filed and does not detract from the fact that the respondents received notices of
claim within six weeks after the 90-day period expired providing them with the essential facts surrounding the claim.

5 of 152
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 11/21/2023 01:13 PM INDEX NO. 719177/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/21/2023

12. In Adkins, supra, at 350, the Court of Appeals noted:

A review of the legislative history of Section 50-e of the General Municipal Law
reveals that it was enacted to establish uniform and equitable procedural system for
instituting tort claims against public corporations. Such a system was intended to
supersede the numerous and inconsistent procedural hurdles erected by general and
local laws [cits.]. Although remedial in nature, the law as finally adopted did not
embrace all the liberal recommendation of the judicial council, but, rather,
accommodated some of the concerns voiced by public corporations [cits.]. The
statute required, as a condition precedent to the institution of a lawsuit against a
public corporation, that notice of all tort claims be delivered within the time period
prescribed to a duly authorized representative of the public corporation. Although
such statutory provisions are properly denominated as conditions precedent to
liability, the service of the notice of claim within the time period prescribed
operates, in effect, as a statute of limitations. The requirement of notice is one of
the safeguards designed by law to protect municipalities against fraudulent and stale
claims for injuries to person and property. It is designed to afford the municipality
opportunity to make an early investigation of the claim while the facts surrounding
the alleged claim are still fresh [emphasis ours].

13. Thus, §50-e of the GML [as well as other notice of claim statutes involving

municipal defendants] requiring those suing a municipality to file a notice of claim was “not meant

as a sword to cut down honest claims, but merely as a shield to protect municipalities against

spurious ones” (DeLeonibus v. Scognamillo, 183 AD2d 697, 698 [2d Dept. 1992], citing Schwartz

v. New York, 250 NY 332 [1929]; see also, Smithtown v. Jet Paper Stock Corp., 179 AD2d 634

[2d Dept. 1992]; Syracuse v. Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 83 AD2d 116, 122 [4th Dept. 1981]. As the Court

of Appeals declared long ago in Sweeney v. New York, 225 NY 271, 273 [1919], notice of claim

requirements should never be used as a “trap to catch the unwary or the ignorant.”

14. “A court’s decision to grant or deny a motion to serve a late notice of claim is

‘purely a discretionary one’” (Matter of Newcomb v. Middle Country Cent. Sch. Dist., 28 NY3d

455, 465 [2016]). See, Chmielewski v. New York, 61 NY2d 1010 [1984]; Plaintin v. NYCHA,

203 AD2d 579 [2d Dept. 1994]. See generally, Major v. County of Nassau, 256 AD2d 344 [2d

Dept. 1998]). “Although the ‘lower courts have broad discretion to evaluate the factors,’ a ‘lower

6 of 152
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 11/21/2023 01:13 PM INDEX NO. 719177/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/21/2023

court’s determinations must be supported by record evidence’” (Matter of Lang v. County of

Nassau, 210 AD3d 773, 774 [2d Dept. 2022]).

15. A key factor to be considered in determining whether to grant an application for

leave to serve and file late notice of claim or to amend the notice of claim is whether the public

corporation acquired timely actual knowledge of the essential facts within the deadline or

reasonable time thereafter (Morris v. County of Suffolk, 88 AD2d 956 [2d Dept. 1982], affd., 58

NY2d 767 [1982]). However, it is not the only factor to be considered. Other factors include

disability of the plaintiff, reasonable excuse for the delay, and prejudice to the defense; the factors

must be considered holistically. Matter of Brown v. City of New York, 218 AD3d 466 [2d Dept.

2023]; Dell’Italia v. LIRR, 31 AD3d 758 [2d Dept. 2006].

16. In striking an “equitable balance between a public corporation's need for prompt

notification of a claim against it, and an injured party's interest in just compensation” (Mondaca v.

County of Westchester, 195 AD2d 511, 512 [2d Dept. 1993], quoting Ferrer v. City of New York,

172 AD2d 240, 241 [1st Dept. 1991]), the court is not “limited to the four corners of the notice of

claim but may consider such other evidence as is properly before the court.” See, D'Alessandro v.

NYCTA, 83 NY2d 891, 893 [1994], quoted with approval in Halali v. City of New York, 213

AD2d 449 [2d Dept. 1995].

17. No discussion of this issue would be complete without consideration of the Court

of Appeals decision Matter of Newcomb v. Middle Country Cent. Sch. Dist., 28 NY3d 455 [2016].

18. In Newcomb, the Court of Appeals held squarely that the burden “initially rests on

the petitioner to show that the late notice will not substantially prejudice the public corporation.”

However, such showing need not “be extensive, but the petitioner must present some evidence or

plausible argument that supports a finding of no substantial prejudice.”

7 of 152
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 11/21/2023 01:13 PM INDEX NO. 719177/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/21/2023

19. Once that initial showing is made, however, “[t]he public corporation must respond

with a particularized evidentiary showing that the corporation will be substantially prejudiced if

the late notice is allowed” (28 NY3d at 466-467). The determination as to whether substantial

prejudice occurs is not made in a “vacuum;” the record must be viewed holistically (id.).

20. In Matter of Jaffier v. City of New York, 148 AD3d 1021 [2d Dept. 2017], the court

stated: “Among the factors to be considered by a court in determining whether lave to serve a late

notice of claim in should be granted are whether the claimant had a reasonable excuse for the

failure to serve a timely notice of claim; whether the municipality acquired actual knowledge of

the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days after the claim arose or a reasonable time

thereafter; and whether the delay would substantially prejudice the municipality in maintaining its

defense” (supra, at 1022). “Neither the presence nor absence of any one factor is determinative,”

and the “absence of a reasonable excuse is not necessarily fatal” (supra, at 1022; see also, Matter

of Joy v. County of Suffolk, 89 AD3d 1025, 1026 [2d Dept. 2011]; Matter of Chambers v. Nassau

County Health Care Corp., 50 AD3d 1134 [2d Dept. 2008]).

21. We acknowledge that the City did not receive actual knowledge of the facts

constituting the claim within 90 days after the claim arose. The 90-day period in which to file a

timely notice of claim expired on January 4, 2023. Subin filed a notice of claim, albeit late, on

April 20, 2023. Accordingly, the City acquired actual knowledge of the facts within a “reasonable

time” after the expiration of the 90-day period. Notably, this Court has granted the filing of late

notices of claim in cases in which the filing far exceeded the 90-day deadline. See, Tomlinson v.

New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 190 AD2d 806 [2d Dept. 1993] [9-year delay excused];

Matter of City of New York v. County of Nassau, 146 AD3d 948 [2d Dept. 2017] [8-month delay

excused]; Trakis v. New York, 459 NYS2d 322 [2d Dept. 1983] [10-month delay excused]; Matter

8 of 152
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 11/21/2023 01:13 PM INDEX NO. 719177/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/21/2023

of Coplon v. Town of Eastchester, 82 AD3d 1095 [2d Dept. 2011] [4-month delay excused, noting

that the condition of the drainpipe was “nontransitory and uninfluenced by the delay”]; Fenton v.

County of Dutchess, 148 AD2d 573 [2d Dept. 1989] [14-month delay excused]; Staley v. Piper,

285 AD2d 601 [2d Dept. 2001] [3 ½-month delay excused].

22. In this regard, the Appellate Division, First Department, has specifically noted that

once a municipal body has actual notice that a lawsuit is likely to follow from the service of a

notice of claim, it should begin its investigation and preserve evidence even if the notice is

untimely and served without leave of the court. See, Pearson v. NYCHHC, 43 AD3d 92, 94 [1st

Dept. 2007], affd., 10 NY3d 852 [2008]).

23. Here, petitioner served the notice of claim late, albeit without prior court approval,

making it a legal “nullity” solely to provide respondents with the opportunity to conduct an

investigation. Under Pearson, supra, even where a belated notice of claim is served without prior

court sanction, the municipality has an obligation to conduct an investigation absent an explicit

rejection because prejudice is not “presumed” (Williams v. City of New York, 229 AD2d 114, 117

[1st Dept. 1997]). In this regard, “without evidence of an attempt to investigate the accident”

prejudice cannot be “shown” as a matter of both fact and law (Goodwin v. NYCHA, 42 AD3d 63,

68 [1st Dept. 2007]). See, Matter of Grajko v. City of New York, 150 AD3d 595, 597 [1st Dept.

2017]; Miles v. New York, 173 AD2d 298, 299 [1st Dept. 1991]; Ingle v. NYCTA, 7 AD3d 574

[2d Dept. 2004]. Since prejudice cannot be established where the municipal defendant “made no

effort to investigate the circumstances of plaintiff’s accident” (Torres v. City of New York, 125

AD3d 573, 574 [1st Dept. 2015]), in the absence of affirmative proof by respondents that their

ability to investigate this claim was hampered by the 6 week delay in being notified of the accident,

9 of 152
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 11/21/2023 01:13 PM INDEX NO. 719177/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/21/2023

under the burden shifting paradigm adopted by the Court of Appeals in Newcomb, this application

should be granted.

24. The Second Department’s recent decision in Matter of Brown, supra, at 466,

establishes the propriety of this position as a matter of fact and law. In Brown, the petitioner, an

employee of the Sanitation Department, tripped and fell on a sidewalk in Brooklyn. Subsequently,

a Department of Sanitation supervisor inspected the area and prepared a line of duty injury report

that identified the location of the accident, petitioner’s description of the accident as well as the

fact that he “rolled” his ankle. About 4 months later, petitioner commenced a proceeding to file a

late notice of claim which was denied by the trial court.

25. The Second Department reversed finding that “the circumstances of the incident

permitted the City to readily infer that a potentially actionable wrong had been committed.”

Because the City “acquired timely knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim, the

petitioner met his initial burden of showing that the City would not be prejudiced by the late notice

of claim,” a showing which could not be overcome because the City possessed “actual knowledge

of the essential facts underlying the claim, and no substantial prejudice to the City was

demonstrated.” Accordingly, even though the petitioner did not possess a reasonable excuse for

the “delay in serving the notice of claim” the denial of petitioner’s application for late claim relief

was plain error. So too, in this case, also involving a trip and fall, the respondents will not be able

to show prejudice given the numerous authenticated contemporary photographs submitted by

petitioner.

26. Here, Subin has provided 101 photographs detailing the location and measurement

of the defect in question taken by Mr. Batista on October 10, 2022, that clearly identify the

sidewalk defect over which Ms. Guzman tripped and fell. These photographs preserve the

10 of 152
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 11/21/2023 01:13 PM INDEX NO. 719177/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/21/2023

condition of the sidewalk enabling the City to conduct an investigation as effectively as if the

notice had been served within 90 days from the accrual of plaintiff’s claim. See, Matter of

Richardson v. NYCHA, 136 AD3d 484 [1st Dept. 2016], lv. den., 28 NY3d 905 [2016]. The City

is free to use these photographs to compare to the condition of the sidewalk as it now exists.

Notably, because this was not a transitory defect, there would be no prejudice to the City’s

investigation. See, Ramirez v. City of New York, 139 AD3d 695 [2d Dept. 2016]; Bitetto v. City

of Yonkers, 13 AD3d 367 [2d Dept. 2004]; Matter of Aguilar v. Town of Islip, 294 AD2d 358 [2d

Dept. 2002]. Here, petitioner has met her initial burden of establishing lack of substantial prejudice

to the respondents. See, Matter of Rodriguez v. City of New York, 172 AD3d 556, 558 [1st Dept.

2019] [“Petitioner easily met her initial burden of providing some evidence or plausible argument

regarding lack of substantial prejudice.”]; Kellman v. Hauppauge Union Free School Dist., 120

AD3d 634, 636 [2d Dept. 2014].

27. Since the absence of a reasonable excuse is not fatal (Alvarez v. NYCHHC (North

Cent. Bronx Hosp.), 101 AD3d 464, 465 [1st Dept. 2012]), and since the City will not be prejudiced

in its investigation, granting this application is appropriate inasmuch as the City may not be able

to rebut any showing made by the petitioner with “particularized indicia of prejudice” (Matter of

City of New York v. County of Nassau, 146 AD3d 948 [2d Dept. 2017]). Considering all the facts

present on this record, granting this application is plainly appropriate.

28. The First Department’s decision in Matter of Richardson, supra, is directly on point.

In that case, “petitioner’s counsel realized that respondent NYCHA, not the City of New York,

owned the property abutting the badly broken sidewalk where petitioner’s accident occurred.”

Petitioner sought an extension of time to file a notice of claim, but the application was denied by

the trial court. The First Department reversed and granted the application.

11 of 152
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 11/21/2023 01:13 PM INDEX NO. 719177/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/21/2023

29. Initially, the First Department noted that the error concerning “the identity of the

responsible public corporation does not provide a reasonable excuse for the delay in giving notice.”

However, “the absence of a reasonable excuse is not, standing alone, fatal to the application.” See,

Porcaro v. City of New York, 20 AD3d 357, 358 [1st Dept. 2005]. Of pertinence, was the First

Department’s finding that even though “NYCHA did not receive actual notice of the accident until

a petition was served, it did not contest petitioner’s assertion that the condition of the badly broken

sidewalk remains unchanged since the time of the accident and that there were no witnesses to the

accident, so that NYCHA will not be substantially prejudiced by the 8-month delay in providing

notice.” As such, any claim of prejudice was conclusory and in light of the underlying purpose

behind GML §50-(e)(5), “which is to be liberally construed to achieve its remedial purposes”

(Matter of Thomas v. City of New York, 118 AD3d 537, 538 [1st Dept. 2014]).

30. At bar, petitioner has shown that the condition of the accident site is fully preserved

enabling the City to conduct any investigation it deems proper. See, Matter of Montero v. City of

New York, 176 AD3d 614 [1st Dept. 2019]. Significantly, generalized claims that delay would

compromise a potential investigation are not, under Newcomb and its progeny, sufficient to

establish prejudice (see, Matter of Montero, supra; Lisandro v. NYCHHC (Metropolitan Hosp.

Ctr.), 50 AD3d 304 [1st Dept. 2008], lv. den., 10 NY3d 715 [2008]). As a matter of both fact and

law, petitioner’s motion for late claim was made within a “reasonable time” after the expiration of

the 90-day period for filing a notice of claim (Matter of Ramos v. NYCHA, 162 AD3d 884 [2d

Dept. 2018]).

31. Petitioner has demonstrated conclusively that the City “will not be substantially

prejudiced by the late notice of claim, since the photographs taken by Mr. Batista depict a defect

as it existed at the time of the accident” (Matter of Brown v. NYCHA, 182 AD3d 594, 595 [2d

12 of 152
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 11/21/2023 01:13 PM INDEX NO. 719177/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/21/2023

Dept. 2020]). Moreover, in the absence of an attempted investigation in which the City can

conclusively show prejudice, any claim that the City would be harmed by having to litigate this

case on the merits is meritless legally (see, Hollman v. 480 Assoc. Inc., 138 AD3d 637 [1st Dept.

2016]; Torres v. City of New York, 125 AD3d 573 [1st Dept. 2015]; Goodwin v. NYCHA, 42

AD3d 63 [1st Dept. 2007]).

32. Although it has been repeatedly stated, “The presence or absence of any factor is

not determinative” (Matter of Sumi v. Village of Stewart Manor, 2023 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS

4124 [2d Dept. August 2, 2023]), this Court has granted petitions for late notices of claims, despite

a municipality’s lack of actual knowledge, where the petitioner meets the threshold burden of

presenting some evidence or plausible argument that supports a finding of no substantial prejudice.

Matter of Balbuenas v. NYCHHC, 209 AD3d 642, 645-647 [2d Dept. 2022]; Matter of Davis v.

Inc. Vil. of Laurel Hollow, 195 AD3d 1019, 1020 [2d Dept. 2021]. The First Department has held

accordingly. See, Matter of Townson v. NYCHHC, 158 AD3d 401, 402-403 [1st Dept. 2018].

33. The purpose of notice of claim statutes is to provide a municipal authority with the

opportunity to investigate (Teresta v. New York, 304 NY 440, 443 [1952]). Indeed, the test of the

notice’s sufficiency is “whether it includes information sufficient to enable the City to investigate

the claim” (O’Brien v. Syracuse, 54 NY2d 353, 358 [1981]). The Appellate Division has held that

“prejudice will not be presumed” (Goodwin, supra, citing Williams v. City of New York, 229

AD2d 114, 117 [1997]). As the Court in Goodwin noted, a claim of prejudice is inappropriate

absent a showing that the municipality “attempted to investigate the accident.”

34. As the City will not be able to submit “evidence” that any “investigation” that it

took, attempted to take, or would take would be “hampered in any way” by the late service of the

notice of claim, this Court should exercise the discretion afforded to it under GML §50-(e)(5),

13 of 152
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 11/21/2023 01:13 PM INDEX NO. 719177/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/21/2023

which is to be liberally construed, to grant the within application (see, Thomas v. NYCHA, 132

AD3d 432, 433 [1st Dept. 2015]). Section 50(e) of the General Municipal Law (as well as other

notice of claim statutes involving municipal defendants) requiring those suing a municipality to

file a notice of claim was not “not meant as a saw to cut down honest claims, but merely as a shield

to protect a municipality against spurious ones” (DeLeonibus, supra, at 698). These requirements

should never be used as a “trap to catch the unwary or the ignorant” (Sweeney v. New York, 225

NY 271, 273 [1919]). Based on the applicable case precedent cited herein, as applied to the factual

record developed by petitioner, late claim relief should be granted to the plaintiff.

35. Based upon the foregoing, it is respectfully requested that this Court issue an order

allowing the petitioner to file a late notice of claim. Annexed hereto as Exhibit H is a copy of the

amended notice of claim that was filed on November 2, 2023.

36. As stated above, this application was previously made on September 15, 2023,

October 13, 2023, and October 27, 2023. The Order to Show Cause was “declined to sign” on

September 28, 2023 (Exhibit A) due to the Court not having the Notice of Claim in the court file

and on October 24, 2023 (Exhibit A) with the reason, “see declination dated 9/28/23” and on

October 31, 2023 with the reason, “See the prior 2 declinations issued. There is still no petition,

affidavit or notice of claim signed.”2 Petitioner is now re-filing the application with the amended

notice of claim annexed as Exhibit H along with an affidavit from petitioner, Hilda Altagracia

Guzman (Exhibit I).

2
On October 25, 2023, our office contacted the Court for guidance due to the several declinations of petitioner’s
application. Pursuant to this Court’s instruction, petitioner is re-filing the Order to Show Cause because the Order to
Show Cause did not include the Notice of Claim as instructed in the September 28, 2023 “Decline to Sign.”

14 of 152
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 11/21/2023 01:13 PM INDEX NO. 719177/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/21/2023

WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, we respectfully request that the within

application be in all respects granted, and for any other and further relief as this Court deems

necessary.

Dated: New York, New York
November 14, 2023

__________________________________
Brian J. Isaac, Esq.

15 of 152
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 11/21/2023 01:13 PM INDEX NO. 719177/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/21/2023

Exhibit A

16 of 152
FILED::
FILED QUEENS
UEENS COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/21/2023
09 29 2023 01:13
09:23 PM '''-
INDEX NO. 719177/2023
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 45
10 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/21/2023
NYSCEF: 09/29/2023

SEQUENCE #1

At an IAS Part 10_ of the Supreme Court of
the State of New York held in and for the
of Queens

_
County at 88-1 1 Sutphin
Boulevard,
Jamaica, New York on

_
the of
day
__ 2023.

PRESENT: HON. KEVIN KERRIGAN , JSC
-----------------------------------------------------------------------X Index No. 719177/23
In the Matter of the Claim of

HILDA ALTAGRACIA GUZMAN,

ORDER TO SHOW
Petitioner, CAUSE

-agamst-

THE CITY OF NEW 9/29/2023
YORK,
COUNTY CLERK
QUEENSCOUNTY,

Respondent.

______________________________________________________________________Ç

Upon the annexed affirmation of Brian J. Isaac, Esq. dated the
day of September

2023, and upon all the pleadings, proceedings and exhibits heretofore had herein,

LET the respondent, The City of New York, show cause at an IAS Part of this Court
at 360 Adams Street, Brooklyn, New York, on the
_ day of
2023 at 9:30

o'clock in the forenoon of that day, or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard, an order
why should

not be made and entered herein:

[a] pursuant to GML §50-(e)(5), petitioner
permitting to serve a late notice
of claim in the form annexed; and

[b] granting any other relief deemed just, proper by this Court.

Sufficient reason
appearing therefor,

171 of
o f 152
2
FILED:
FILED : QUEENS
QUEENS COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/21/2023
09/29/2023 01:13
09:23 PM INDEX
INDEX NO. 719177/2023
NO. 719177/2023
AM)
NYSCEF DOC.
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45
NO. 10 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/21/2023
NYSCEF: 09/29/2023

LET service of a copy of this order to show cause, together with copies of the papers upon

which it is granted, upon respondent at 100 Church Street, New York, New York, by

service, on or before the day of 2023, be considered

good and sufficient service.

Dated: Jamaica,New York

, 2023

9/29/2023
E N T E R :

J.S.C.

182 of
of 152
2
10/25/2023 01:13
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 11/21/2023 12:06 PM

Case Info

Judge

Kevin J Kerrigan Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

November 21, 2023

Case Filing Date

September 15, 2023

County

Parties

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Document for In The Matter Of The Claim Of Hilda Altagracia Guzman v. The City Of New York

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties