Court Opinion

ID: 9958740
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-09 20:10:30.217911+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:40.214447
License: Public Domain

Matter of Khan v Metropolitan Transp. Auth.
               2024 NY Slip Op 31075(U)
                      April 1, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 159185/2023
                  Judge: John J. Kelley
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
 Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
 State and local government sources, including the New
  York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
 This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
                       publication.
                                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 159185/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 27                                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:             HON. JOHN J. KELLEY                                             PART                              56M
                                                                                      Justice
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X   INDEX NO.          159185/2023
             In the Matter of
                                                                                                 MOTION DATE         11/08/2023
             MUHAMMAD KHAN and CRESCENT ADMINISTRATIVE
             SERVICES, INC.,                                                                     MOTION SEQ. NO.         001

                                                         Petitioners,

                                                 -v-
                                                                                                   DECISION, ORDER, AND
             METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, MTA
             BUS COMPANY, and NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT                                                     JUDGMENT
             AUTHORITY,

                                                         Respondents.
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,
            9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25
            were read on this motion to/for                                        LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM              .

                      In this proceeding pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e, the petitioner seeks leave

            to serve a late notice of claim upon the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), MTA Bus

            Company (MTA Bus), and New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) in connection with a July

            30, 2022 motor vehicle accident that occurred on Chrystie Street in Manhattan, near its

            intersection with East Houston Street. The respondents oppose the petition. The petition is

            granted.

                      Service of a notice of claim upon the MTA in accordance with Public Authorities Law §

            1276(2) and General Municipal Law § 50-e is a condition precedent to the commencement of a

            tort action against it (see Jacobs v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 180 AD3d 657, 658 [2d Dept

            2020]). MTA Bus is a subsidiary of the MTA (see Rampersaud v Metropolitan Transp. Auth. of

            State of N.Y., 73 AD3d 888, 888 [2d Dept 2010]). Although there is no requirement that such a

            notice of claim be served as a condition to a tort action against an MTA subsidiary such as MTA

            Bus (see Public Authorities Law § 1276[6]; Frost v New York City Tr. Auth., 140 AD3d 695, 696
             159185/2023 KHAN, MUHAMMAD ET AL vs. METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY                              Page 1 of 7
             ET AL
             Motion No. 001

                                                                           1 of 7
[* 1]
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 159185/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 27                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024

            [2d Dept 2016]; Stampf v Metropolitan Transp. Auth. 57 AD3d 222, 222 [2d Dept 2008]), that

            subsection requires that a demand be made upon MTA Bus, and that any complaint include an

            allegation that more than 30 days had lapsed since presentation of the demand and that the

            demand had not been satisfied or adjusted. Similarly, service of a notice of claim upon NYCTA

            in accordance with Public Authorities Law § 1212(2) and General Municipal Law § 50-e is a

            condition precedent to the commencement of a tort action against it (see Castro-Castillo v City

            of New York, 78 AD3d 406, 406 [1st Dept 2010]). Nonetheless,

                           “[t]he 1976 amendments to section 50-e of the General Municipal Law permit a
                           court to grant an application to file a late notice of claim after the commencement
                           of the action but preclude the court from granting an extension which would
                           exceed ‘the time limited for the commencement of an action by the claimant
                           against the public corporation’ (L 1976, ch 745, § 2 [now General Municipal Law,
                           § 50-e, subd 5 ]). That means that the application for the extension may be
                           made before or after the commencement of the action but not more than one
                           year and 90 days after the cause of action accrued, unless the statute has been
                           tolled”

            (Pierson v City of New York, 56 NY2d 950, 954 [1982]). Thus, where a claimant seeks leave to

            serve a late notice of claim, and the application is made after the applicable limitations period

            has lapsed, the court is without authority to consider the motion or petition (see Preston v

            Janssen Pharmaceuticals., Inc., 171 AD3d 572, 572-573 [1st Dept 2019]; Young v New York

            City Health & Hosps. Corp., 147 AD3d 509, 509 [1st Dept 2017]; see also Townsend v City of

            New York, 173 AD3d 809, 810 [2d Dept 2019]; Chtchannikova v City of New York, 138 AD3d

            908, 909 [2d Dept 2016]). Here, however, the petitioner commenced this proceeding on

            September 14, 2023 (see CPLR 304[a]; Matter of New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v Gordon,

            46 AD3d 1296, 1298 [3d Dept 2007]) and, thus, within the applicable 1-year-and-90-day

            limitations period of General Municipal Law 50-i(1). The proceeding is thus timely.

                   General Municipal Law § 50-e(1)(a) requires that service of a notice of claim must be

            effectuated within 90 days after the claim arises, unless extended by the court. The petitioners

            alleged that the subject incident occurred on July 30, 2022, at which time a bus owned by the

            respondents and operated by an employee of one or more of the respondents negligently
             159185/2023 KHAN, MUHAMMAD ET AL vs. METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY           Page 2 of 7
             ET AL
             Motion No. 001

                                                          2 of 7
[* 2]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 159185/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 27                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024

            collided with a vehicle operated by the petitioner Muhammed Khan and owned by the petitioner

            Crescent Administrative Service, Inc. (Crescent). Inasmuch as the 90-day period applicable

            here lapsed on October 28, 2022, the petitioners, in the absence of a court-authorized extension

            of time, would had to have served the notice of claim by that date. Inasmuch as the petitioners

            failed to do so, leave to extend that period of time is required. In support of their application, the

            petitioners alleged that, on August 29, 2022---less than 30 days after the subject accident---they

            served a notice of claim upon both the MTA and NYCTA in connection with Crescent’s property

            damage claim, asserting that:

                           “[t]he Claimants vehicle, a 2018 Toyota Camry Hybrid LE Taxi, license plate #
                           T746715C, was driving straight on Chrystie Street in their lane at the time of the
                           incident, when the Metropolitan Transit Authority Vehicle, a Transit Bus license
                           plate # AV7784, driven by Ronald Mitchell, was making a left turn and failed to
                           properly stay in their lane and struck the claimants vehicle in the process causing
                           damage to the driver’s side rear and wheel of the claimants vehicle. The damage
                           to the claimant’s vehicles is mostly to the Driver’s side Rear of the vehicle - Rear
                           Door, Quarter Panel, Rear Bumper, Rear Lamp and others in total of $8,342.33
                           in damages. See attached estimate.”

            The notice of claim, which was submitted on a standard NYCTA property damage notice of

            claim form, expressly identified Khan as the driver of Crescent’s vehicle. The petitioners argued

            that, not only did the respondents obtain actual notice of the facts underlying the basis for a

            negligence claim by virtue of their timely receipt of the property damage notice of claim, but that

            they knew of Khan’s personal injury claim on the date of the accident because their employees

            appeared at the scene and investigated the incident, while the police report for which their

            employees provided information reflected that Khan was taken from the scene by ambulance to

            Mount Sinai/Beth Israel Hospital. The petitioners argued that they had a reasonable excuse for

            their failure timely to serve a notice of claim with respect to Khan’s physical injuries because,

            due to law office failure, they inadvertently served only a property damage notice of claim, rather

            than an omnibus property damage/personal injury notice of claim.

                   In considering a request to extend the time for service of a notice of claim,

             159185/2023 KHAN, MUHAMMAD ET AL vs. METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY             Page 3 of 7
             ET AL
             Motion No. 001

                                                           3 of 7
[* 3]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 159185/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 27                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024

                           “the court shall consider, in particular, whether the public corporation or its
                           attorney or its insurance carrier acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts
                           constituting the claim within the time specified in subdivision one of this section
                           or within a reasonable time thereafter. The court shall also consider all other
                           relevant facts and circumstances, including: whether the claimant was an infant,
                           or mentally or physically incapacitated, or died before the time limited for service
                           of the notice of claim; whether the claimant failed to serve a timely notice of claim
                           by reason of his justifiable reliance upon settlement representations made by an
                           authorized representative of the public corporation or its insurance carrier;
                           whether the claimant in serving a notice of claim made an excusable error
                           concerning the identity of the public corporation against which the claim should
                           be asserted”

            (General Municipal Law § 50-e[5]). The court must also consider whether there was a

            reasonable excuse for the delay in service the notice of claim (see Matter of Kelley v New York

            City Health & Hosps. Corp., 76 AD3d 824 [1st Dept 2010]; see also Matter of Grajko v City of

            New York, 150 AD3d 595 [1st Dept 2017]). In addition, the court must assess whether the

            delay in service substantially prejudiced the public corporation’s ability to defend on the merits

            (see Rivera v City of New York, 169 AD2d 387 [1st Dept 1991]).

                   No one factor articulated in the statute is determinative (see Perez v New York City

            Health & Hosps. Corp., 81 AD3d 448, 448 [1st Dept 2011]), “and since the notice statute is

            remedial in nature, it should be liberally construed” (id.; see Pearson v New York City Health &

            Hosps. Corp. [Harlem Hosp. Ctr.], 43 AD3d 92, 94 [1st Dept 2007], affd 10 NY3d 852 [2008];

            see also Williams v Nassau County Med. Ctr., 6 NY3d 531, 539 [2006]). In fact, even “[t]he lack

            of a reasonable excuse for failing to serve a timely notice of claim is not determinative” (Matter

            of Meacham v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 77 AD3d 570, 570 [1st Dept 2010]). The

            most important factor is whether the public corporation, its attorney, or its insurer acquired

            actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days of its accrual or a

            reasonable time thereafter (see Matter of Gasperetti v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 169 AD3d

            564 [1st Dept 2019]; Matter of Felice v Eastport/South Manor Cent. School Dist., 50 AD3d 138

            [2d Dept 2008]). Thus, although the petitioners’ excuse of law office failure is not a reasonable

            excuse for failing to timely serve a notice of claim, the failure to proffer a reasonable excuse is

             159185/2023 KHAN, MUHAMMAD ET AL vs. METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY            Page 4 of 7
             ET AL
             Motion No. 001

                                                          4 of 7
[* 4]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 159185/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 27                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024

            not alone fatal to their application for leave to serve a late notice (see Colarossi v City of New

            York, 118 AD3d 612, 612 [1st Dept 2014]; Walker v City of New York, 46 AD3d 278, 281 [1st

            Dept 2007]).

                   General knowledge that a wrong has been committed is not enough to satisfy the actual

            knowledge requirement (see Matter of Devivo v Town of Carmel, 68 AD3d 991 [2d Dept 2009];

            Matter of Wright v City of New York, 66 AD3d 1037 [2d Dept 2009]).

                           “In order to have actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim,
                           the public corporation must have knowledge of the facts that underlie the legal
                           theory or theories on which liability is predicated in the notice of claim; the public
                           corporation need not have specific notice of the theory or theories themselves”

            (Matter of Felice v Eastport/South Manor Cent. School Dist., 50 AD3d at 148; see Matter of

            Wally G. v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp. [Metro. Hosp.], 27 NY3d 672 [2016]; Iglesias v

            Brentwood Union Free Sch. Dist., 118 AD3d 785 [2d Dept 2014]).

                           “[K]nowledge of the accident itself and the seriousness of the injury does not
                           satisfy this enumerated factor where those facts do not also provide the public
                           corporation with knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim”

            (Matter of Felice v Eastport/South Manor Cent. School Dist., 50 AD3d at 155; see Horn v

            Bellmore Union Free Sch. Dist., 139 AD3d 1006 [2d Dept 2016]). Knowledge of facts that

            merely suggest the possibility of liability is insufficient, as a claimant must demonstrate the

            municipal or public corporation’s actual knowledge of the tortious acts or omissions that

            allegedly injured the claimant (see Matter of Townson v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.,

            158 AD3d 401 [1st Dept 2018]; see also Matter of Wally G. v. New York City Health & Hosps.

            Corp. [Metro. Hosp.], 27 NY3d at 677).

                   As the Appellate Division, First Department, has observed, General Municipal Law § 50-

            e (5) “should not operate as a device to defeat the rights of persons with legitimate claims”

            (Matter of Annis v New York City Tr. Auth., 108 AD2d 643, 644 [1st Dept 1985]). Here, any

            contention that the respondents lacked actual knowledge of the accident, the time it occurred,

            the place it occurred, or the nature of the claim against it, either within the 90-day period or

             159185/2023 KHAN, MUHAMMAD ET AL vs. METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY             Page 5 of 7
             ET AL
             Motion No. 001

                                                           5 of 7
[* 5]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 159185/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 27                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024

            within a reasonable time thereafter, is refuted by the fact that the petitioners provided them with

            precisely that actual notice when they served the property damage notice of claim upon the

            MTA and NYCTA on August 29, 2022. Thus, the MTA and NYCTA acquired actual knowledge

            of the essential facts underlying the basis for a negligence claim against them within the

            relevant 90-day period. The court recognizes that the mere participation of a municipal or public

            employee in the underlying tortious activity, or the municipality’s or public benefit corporation’s

            possession of records, are insufficient, in and of themselves, to establish their actual knowledge

            of relevant facts (see Matter of Jaime v City of New York, _____ NY3d_____, 2024 NY Slip Op

            01581 [Mar. 21, 2024]). Nonetheless, the petitioners have demonstrated that the respondents’

            actual investigation of the accident, and their receipt of a timely notice of claim describing the

            accident in detail, coupled with their possession of the police accident report, constitute proof

            that they obtained actual knowledge of the facts underlying Khan’s personal injury claim within

            90 days of the accident. In any event, the petitioners’ service of a late, albeit unauthorized,

            personal injury notice of claim on August 13, 2023, gave further notice of the underlying facts

            thereof to the respondents within a “reasonable time” after the lapse of the 90-day period.

                   Although the court concludes that petitioners failed to articulate a reasonable excuse for

            failing timely to serve the personal injury notice of claim in the first instance (see Matter of Smith

            v Westchester County Health Care Corp., 165 AD3d 1150, 1151 [2d Dept 2018] [“petitioner

            failed to demonstrate through admissible medical evidence that [s]he was incapacitated to such

            an extent that [s]he could not have complied with the statutory requirement to serve a timely

            notice of claim”]), the respondents

                           “ha[ve] failed to make a particularized showing that the delay caused it
                           substantial prejudice . . . and, in any event, a lack of a reasonable excuse is not,
                           standing alone, sufficient to deny an application for leave to serve and file a late
                           notice of claim”

            (Matter of Jaime v City of New York, 205 AD3d 544, 544-545 [1st Dept 2022], revd other

            grounds _____NY3d_____, 2024 NY Slip Op 01581 [Mar. 21, 2024]). The court thus concludes

             159185/2023 KHAN, MUHAMMAD ET AL vs. METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY             Page 6 of 7
             ET AL
             Motion No. 001

                                                           6 of 7
[* 6]
                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 159185/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 27                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024

            that, upon weighing all of the relevant factors, the petition should be granted (see Matter of

            Meacham v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 77 AD3d at 570; Pearson v New York City

            Health & Hosps. Corp. [Harlem Hosp. Ctr.], 43 AD3d at 93; Matter of Carter v City of New York,

            2023 NY Slip Op 30837[U], *3-4, 2023 NY Misc LEXIS 1186, *5 [Sup Ct, N.Y. County, Mar. 20,

            2023] [Kelley, J.]).

                    The court notes that “the statute of limitations is tolled during the pendency of an

            application to extend the time to serve a notice of claim” (Matter of Dougherty v County of

            Greene, 161 AD3d 1253, 1254 [3d Dept 2018]; see Matter of Stevenson v County of Monroe, 63

            NY2d 963, 965 [1984]; Giblin v Nassau County Med. Ctr., 61 NY2d 67, 74 [1984]; Cody v

            Village of Lake George, 177 AD2d 921, 922 [3d Dept 1991]).

                    Accordingly, it is,

                    ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the petition is granted, and the petitioners’ time to

            serve an omnibus personal injury/property damage notice of claim upon the respondents is

            extended so that the petitioners’ proposed notice of claim, as uploaded to the New York State

            Court Electronic Filing system as Docket Entry No. 19, is deemed to have been timely served

            upon the respondents as of the date of entry of this decision, order, and judgment.

                    This constitutes the Decision, Order, and Judgment of the court.

                     4/1/2024                                                              $SIG$
                      DATE                                                         JOHN J. KELLEY, J.S.C.

             CHECK ONE:                   X   CASE DISPOSED                NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                          X   GRANTED             DENIED   GRANTED IN PART             OTHER

             APPLICATION:                     SETTLE ORDER                 SUBMIT ORDER

             CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:            INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN   FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT       REFERENCE

             159185/2023 KHAN, MUHAMMAD ET AL vs. METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY              Page 7 of 7
             ET AL
             Motion No. 001

                                                               7 of 7
[* 7]