Court Opinion

ID: 9954334
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-25 21:11:40.811359+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:12:02.529637
License: Public Domain

Garcia v New York City Hous. Auth.
               2024 NY Slip Op 30873(U)
                     March 18, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 153656/2022
                  Judge: Arlene P. Bluth
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. 153656/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23                                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/18/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:             HON. ARLENE P. BLUTH                                            PART                              14
                                                                                      Justice
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X   INDEX NO.          153656/2022
                JESUS GARCIA
                                                                                                 MOTION DATE        05/20/20221
                                                         Petitioner,
                                                                                                 MOTION SEQ. NO.         001
                                                 -v-
                NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY,                                                   DECISION + ORDER ON
                                                                                                         MOTION
                                                         Respondent.
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 1- 10, 12, 13, 14, 15,
            16, 17,
            were read on this motion to/for                                                      LEAVE TO FILE                     .

                      The petition for leave to file a late notice of claim is granted.

            Background

                      Petitioner explains that he was injured while working as a laborer for non-party Adam’s

            European Contracting Inc. (“AEC”). He explains that the construction site was located at a

            housing complex in Red Hook, Brooklyn owned and operated by respondent. Petitioner alleges

            that NYCHA publicized a bid for the work and AEC won the bid. He contends AEC was

            required to procured insurance naming respondent as an additional insured.

                      He observes that he did not file a notice of claim because he is not an attorney and did not

            initially plan on suing anyone for the accident. Petitioner maintains he became concerned when

            his condition did not demonstrably improve. Petitioner alleges that after speaking with worker’s

            1
              The Court observes that this motion has been marked fully submitted for nearly two years before different judges.
            Although this is the first workday that this proceeding was transferred to this part, the Court apologizes, on behalf of
            the court system, for the lengthy delay in the resolution of this proceeding.
                153656/2022 GARCIA, JESUS vs. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY                                        Page 1 of 4
                Motion No. 001

                                                                           1 of 4
[* 1]
                                                                                                      INDEX NO. 153656/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23                                                                          RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/18/2024

            compensation attorneys, it was suggested that he find personal injury attorneys. Petitioner hired

            counsel and his new attorneys noted that the firm quickly researched the ownership of the

            construction site and learned that it had to file a notice of claim (which it did on March 8, 2022)

            (NYSCEF Doc. No. 2). He calculates that because the accident was November 30, 2021, the

            deadline to file a notice of claim was March 1, 2022. Petitioner maintains that the Court should

            overlook this missed deadline as it was only delayed by a few days. Petitioner also argues that

            respondent received actual notice about the accident because two incident reports were sent to

            respondent about the accident. He adds that respondent will not be substantially prejudiced if the

            Court were to grant the petition.

                    In opposition (respondent did not submit an answer), respondent contends that petitioner

            has not identified a reasonable excuse for his failure to timely serve a notice of claim. It adds that

            it did not acquire actual knowledge of the claim within the statutory period. Respondent denies

            that the incident reports were sent to it. It argues that due to the failure to file a notice of claim,

            respondent will not have the chance to conduct a thorough investigation of the alleged incident.

                    In reply, petitioner points out that although respondent insists the Court should ignore the

            untimely notice of claim, respondent opposed the petition 18 days late (later than petitioner’s

            notice of claim). Petitioner emphasizes that the delay here was only a few days and so the

            petition should be granted. He observes that respondent clearly had the incident reports because

            respondent produced them pursuant to a FOIL request.

                    The Court did not consider the sur-reply filed by petitioner (NYSCEF Doc. No. 20),

            which was filed without permission.

             153656/2022 GARCIA, JESUS vs. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY                             Page 2 of 4
             Motion No. 001

                                                            2 of 4
[* 2]
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 153656/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/18/2024

            Discussion

                   “In considering whether to grant leave to file a late notice of claim, courts consider

            whether the public corporation acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the

            claim within [90 days] or within a reasonable time thereafter, and all other relevant facts and

            circumstances, including whether the delay in serving the notice of claim substantially

            prejudiced the public corporation in maintaining its defense on the merits, the length of the

            delay, and whether there was a reasonable excuse for the delay” (Rodriguez v City of New York,

            172 AD3d 556, 557, 101 NYS3d 303 [1st Dept 2019] [internal quotations and citations

            omitted]).

                   The Court grants the petition. The brief delay in filing the notice of claim, just a few

            days, combined with the circumstances of this proceeding justifies granting petitioner his

            requested relief. The fact is that courts have overlooked longer delays (e.g., Clarke v New York

            City Tr. Auth., 222 AD3d 552, 202 NYS3d 89 [1st Dept 2023] [permitting the filing of a late

            notice of claim 10 months after the accident occurred]). And petitioner explained that he did not

            know he needed to file a notice of claim and hoped that his injuries would improve so he would

            not have to sue anyone. But once his worker’s compensation benefits began to diminish, he was

            told to hire a lawyer. Petitioner’s attorneys then promptly filed a notice of claim only a few days

            after the deadline.

                   The Court observes that the parties disagree about whether respondent has actual

            knowledge of the accident. However, petitioner alleges in his verified petition that he got copies

            of incident reports through a FOIL request sent to respondent and includes a copy of the FOIL

            request itself (NYSCEF Doc. No. 7). Respondent did not adequately oppose this point in

            opposition. Nothing was submitted from someone with personal knowledge (no answer was

             153656/2022 GARCIA, JESUS vs. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY                        Page 3 of 4
             Motion No. 001

                                                          3 of 4
[* 3]
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 153656/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23                                                                          RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/18/2024

            filed). And, most critically, respondent did not address petitioner’s point that he acquired this

            information from respondent itself through a FOIL request. This shows that respondent has

            actual knowledge of petitioner’s accident. A blanket denial concerning notice does not justify

            denying the petition.

                    Accordingly, it is hereby

                    ADJUDGED that the petition for leave to serve a late notice of claim is granted and the

            Court considers the subject notice of claim to be timely nunc pro tunc; and it is further

                    ORDERED that petitioner shall commence an action and purchase a new index number in

            the event a lawsuit arising from this notice of claim is filed.

                    3/18/2024                                                            $SIG$
                      DATE                                                       ARLENE P. BLUTH, 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

             153656/2022 GARCIA, JESUS vs. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY                          Page 4 of 4
             Motion No. 001

                                                           4 of 4
[* 4]