Matter of Lebron v Village of Spring Val.

Matter of Lebron v Village of Spring Val. 2011 NY Slip Op 01474 Decided on February 22, 2011 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on February 22, 2011
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P.
DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO
RUTH C. BALKIN
PLUMMER E. LOTT
ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.
2010-02616
(Index No. 7505/09)

[*1]In the Matter of David Lebron, respondent,

v

Village of Spring Valley, et al., appellants.




Sokoloff Stern, LLP, Westbury, N.Y. (Brian S. Sokoloff and Leo
Dorfman of counsel), for appellants.
Young & Bartlett, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (Francis X. Young of
counsel), for respondent.


DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to General Muncipal Law § 50-e(5) for leave to serve a late notice of claim, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Weiner, J.), dated January 6, 2010, which granted the petition.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the petition is denied.

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the petition for leave to serve a late notice of claim. The petitioner failed to provide a reasonable excuse for his failure to serve a timely notice of claim (see Matter of Felice v Eastport/South Manor Cent. School Dist., 50 AD3d 138, 147). Moreover, the evidence submitted by the petitioner with his petition failed to establish that the Village of Spring Valley had actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting his claims within 90 days following their accrual or a reasonable time thereafter (see Williams v Nassau County Med. Ctr., 6 NY3d 531, 536; Matter of Bush v City of New York, 76 AD3d 628, 629; Matter of Charles v City of New York, 67 AD3d 793). Finally, the petitioner failed to establish that the delay in serving a notice of claim would not substantially prejudice the Village (see Williams v Nassau County Med. Ctr., 6 NY3d at 539; Matter of Bush v City of New York, 76 AD3d at 629; Matter of Felice v Eastport/South Manor Cent. School Dist., 50 AD3d at 152-153).
MASTRO, J.P., ANGIOLILLO, BALKIN, LOTT and MILLER, JJ., concur.

ENTER: [*2]

Matthew G. Kiernan

Clerk of the Court