DeBruin v Town of Macedon
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
DeBruin v Town of Macedon 2016 NY Slip Op 30022(U) January 4, 2016 Supreme Court, Wayne County Docket Number: 78665 Judge: Dennis M. Kehoe Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various state and local government websites. These include the New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service, and the Bronx County Clerk's office. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] STATE OF NEW YORK SUPREME COURT COUNTY OF WAYNE ROBERT G. DeBRUIN, Petitioner, -vsTOWN OF MACEDON, The MACEDON POLICE DEPARTMENT, OFFICER J. COLELLA and JOHN DOE, intended to be one or more unknown employees of the Macedon Police Department ECISION 1 ndex No. 78665 Respondents - .. - ... Jeffrey Wicks, Esq. Attorney for Petitioner ,- ·. Webster Szanyi, LLP Steven R. Hamlin, Esq. Attorneys for Respondents The Petitioner Robert G. DeBruin has moved for an <Drder granting him leave to serve a late notice of claim in the above mattlr pursuant to General Municipal Law §50-e. The Respondents have op ,osed the motion. The Petitioner's alleged claims arise from an inciden which occurred at approximately 8:00 A.M. on January 26, 2015 on Route 31 in Macedon, New York. The Petitioner's vehicle was stopped by Office John P. Collela, Chief of Police of the Town of Macedon Police Departmen based upon 1 , -1- [* 2] I - Chief Collela's personal observations of the Petitioner's allegedly erratic I driving. The Petitioner was transported to the !Macedon folice Department, where he was de.tained for approximately six (6) hours and subjected to various tests to determine whether he had been driving under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs. The Petitioner was ultimately arrested on the charge of Driving While Under the lnflue ce of Drugs, in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law §1192(4). He was released from custody, an~ family members immediately transported him to Rochester General Hospital, where it was determined that the Petitifner had no trace of alcohol or drugs in his system, and that he had "most llkely" suffered a T.1.A. or "mini stroke". General Municipal Law §50-e provides in part that a Notice of Claim against a municipality must be filed within ninety (90) da+ of the date of the incident as a condition precedent to commencement of legal action. Therefore, the time in which the Petitioner was required to file his Notice of Claim expired on April 26, 2015. The Petitioner indicateq to his present attorney that he was unaware of the statutory filing requirement; consequently, he did not contact counsel until four (4) da~s after the ninety (90) day period expired. A Notice of Claim was signed by the Petitioner on -2- [* 3] May 22, 2015, and this motion was filed with the Wayne County Clerk's Office on June 5, 2015. This Court has reviewed the affidavits submitted o behalf of the respective parties, together with the Memorandum of Law submitted by counsel for the Respondents, and the Court makes the following findings: 1) The Petitioner has failed to offer a "reasonable excuse" for his failure to file a timely notice of claim as that term has been interpreted by the courts. Case law has established that ignorance of the existence of the statutory time periods does not constitute a reasonable excuse for noncompliance (see, e.g. Cardino v Starpoint Cent. School Dist., 115 AD3d 1170 (4th Dept, 2014), affd 24 NY3d 925 (2014)). I 2) Therefore, in the absence of a reasonable excuse, the Petitioner must demonstrate that the Respondent had actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the Claim, and that the delay i filing will not substantially prejudice the Respondent in maintaining its defense on the merits. 3) Given the relatively minimal delay in submitting the Petitioner's notice of claim, the Court cannot find that the municipali~ has suffered any serious prejudice to its defense. Moreover, the municipality acquired first -3- [* 4] hand knowledge of the underlying facts of the case by virtue of the direct involvement of its employees in the incident. 4) However, the Respondents argue that the Petitioner has not demonstrated "actual notice", in that the record fails to J stablish that the Respondents had "timely notice of any injuries or damagJes claimed by (Petitioner) beyond mere notice of the underlying occur ence". (Lewis v Northpole Fire Co., 11 AD3d 911 (4th Dept, 2004 )). Ho~ever, the appellate courts have consistently held that a municipality must h~ve knowledge of the connection between the occurrence and the alleged damages within ninety (90) days of the accrual of the claim, "or within a ~easonable time thereafter" (emphasis added) (see, e.g. Santana v Western Regional Off1 Track Betting Corp , 2 AD3d 1304 (4th Dept, 2003)). In t1is instance, the Petitioner's Notice of Claim was filed with his motion papers on June 8, 2015 less than two months after the expiration of the ninety (90) day period, which would appear to constitute reasonable notice. However, even if the Court were to find that the mJnicipality had timely notice of the essential facts of the Petitioner's claim, the Court is forced to conclude that the Petitioner's moving papers -4- ar~ insufficient to [* 5] establish the existence of a meritorious cause of action. Aside from the affidavit of the Petitioner's attorney, the only document submitted in . I support of this motion is the Petitioner's proposed Notice of Claim, which sets forth in brief his assertions that he was arrested without probable cause, and that he was denied access to medical care by employees of the Macedon Police Department. In support of his claim for damages, the Petitioner maintains that, contrary to the conclusions reached by the police officers regarding his physical condition, his subsequent visit to Rochester Gejeral Hospital confirmed that he did not have any alcohol or drugs in hi~ system. He further alleges that "the hospital" concluded that he had "most likely" suffered a "mini-stroke". However, the Petitioner has not submitted any affidavits or medical records from the hospital or members of its staff, nor does he provide affidavits from any of his family members who transported him to the hospital. Nor does the Petitioner controvert the sworn allegations of the police officers regarding his erratic driving, the damaged condition of his motor vehicle, and his subsequent behav at the r·or Macedon Police Station, all of which provided the police probable cause for his arrest. -5- ith ample [* 6] Moreover, the Petitioner has not established that the police officers acted with "deliberate indifference" in denying him accesr to medical assistance for his alleged physical condition. In his Notice of Claim, the Petitioner alleges that he informed the police that he needed medical treatment; however, in their sworn affidavits, the officers maintain that they offered to provide the Petitioner with medical assistance on more than one occasion, and that he refused their offers, stating that he was suffering from a "sinus condition". Despite this apparent contradiction in the parties' factual accounts of the conversation, this discrepancy, w thout more, is insufficient to give rise to a mel"itorious claim of "malice", as alleged in the Petitioner's Notice of Claim, or "recklessness", as required by applicable case law. (See, e.g. Allah v White , 243 AD2d 913 (3rd Dept, 1997)). As stated above, the Petitioner has presented no documentrtion corroborating his alleged medical condition on the day in question, and the affidavits of the police officers support a finding that the Petitioner's behavior, including his appearance, speech, and his poor performance of field sobriety tests, was consistent with the use of an illegal substance. The Petitioner has failed to make a sufficient showing that the officers knew, or had reason to know, that he suffered from any physical ailment. Such a conclusion, -6- [* 7] based upon the papers as presented to the Court, is entirry speculative. The Court concludes that the Petitioner has failed to demr strate that his claim has merit, as required by case law. (See Cardino, supra). Therefore, the Petitioner's motion for leave to serve l 1 Notice of ate Claim is denied. Counsel for the! Respondents is directed to submit an Order consistent with this Decision, on notice to counsel f r the Petjtioner. Dated: ~\ " January 4, 2016 Lyons, New York { l -7- '-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
