Court Opinion

ID: 9960300
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-15 21:07:48.091661+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:21.701384
License: Public Domain

Williams v New York City Tr. Auth.
               2024 NY Slip Op 31228(U)
                     April 10, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 154457/2023
              Judge: Denise M. Dominguez
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. 154457/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 33                                                                                          RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/10/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:             HON. DENISE M DOMINGUEZ                                          PART
                                                                                        Justice
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
                                                                                                  INDEX NO.         154457/2023
             MATTHEW WILLIAMS
                                                                                                  MOTION SEQ. NO.       001
                                                     Petitioner

                                                 - V -
                                                                                                   DECISION AND ORDER ON
             NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, METROPOLITAN
             TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, MTA BUS COMPANY
                                                                                                          MOTION

                                                     Respondents

            --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- X

            The following c-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 2, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19,
            20,21, 22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30, 31,32
            were read on this motion to/for                                                       EXTEND - TIME

                      Petitioner moves pursuant to General Municipal Law §50-e for an extension oftime to serve a

           late notice of claim upon Respondents and to deem a late notice of claim served nun pro tune. For the

           reasons that follow, the extension is granted but the nun pro tune relief is denied.

                      Pursuant to General Municipal Law §50-e, this Court has discretion to grant or deny a timely

           application for an extension of time to serve a late notice of claim upon a public entity (General

           Municipal Law §50-c [5]; Pierson v. CityofNew York, 56 NY2d 950 ll 992J). In making such decision

           this Court must give great weight to whether the public entity acquired actual notice of the essential

           facts of the claim with in ninety (90) days after the date the claim arose or a reasonable time thereafter

           (General Municipal Law §50-e [5]; see Pierson v. City of New York_ 56 NY2d 950 [1992]; Bertone

           Commissioning v City of New York, 27 AD3d 222 l} st Dept 2006}; Orozco v City oflv'ew York, 200

           A.D.Jd 559, 161 N.Y.S.Jd 1 [1st Dept 2021])

                      Other key factors to consider, include the reason why the Petitioner did not serve the

           prerequisite, required, and mandatory notice of claim within the 90-day window and whether granting

             15445712023 WILLIAMS, MATTHEW vs. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY ET AL                                Page 1 of 5
             Motion No. 001

[* 1]                                                                       1 of 5
                                                                                                         INDEX NO. 154457/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 33                                                                            RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/10/2024

           the extension will substantially prejudice the public entity (General Municipal Law §50-e [5]; see also

            Dubowy v. City of M:.w York, 305 AD2d 320 [I st Dept 2003 J; Porcaro v. City of New York, 20 AD3d

           357[ 1st Dept 2005]). Yet the presence or absence of any one factor, except the factor that Respondents

           had knowledge of the facts of the claim within ninety (90) days, is not detenninalive or fatal to these

           application (see Dubowy,305 J\D2d 320; Matter of Porcaro, 20 AD3d 357).

                    What is paramount and necessary in deciding these applications is assuring that the public

           entities can fairly investigate a meritorious claim against them while the evidence is fresh and available

           (see Porcaro, 20 AD3d 357; Orozco, 200 AD3d 559).

           Reasonable Fxcuse

                          Here, Petitioner alleges that on June 13, 2022, while operating his motor vehicle, he was

            struck by Respondents' bus near 107 East 125 th Street in Manhattan. As a result, he alleges sustaining

            personal injury. Petitioner further alleges that on the date of the accident he obtained a police report

           and an MTA/ NYC Transit accident exchange form.

                          As the accident occurred on June 13, 2022, pursuant to General Municipal Law §50e,

            Petitioner had approximately until September 11, 2022, to serve Respondents, or ninety (90) days after

           the date the claim arose. Further since September 11, 2022, was a Sunday, Petitioner had until Monday

            September 12, 2022 (see N.Y. Gen. Constr. Law§ 25-a).

                          Yet Petitioner's counsel who was retained within the 90-day window and approximately

            within ten (10) days from the date the claim arose, on or about June 23, 2022, did not attempt to serve

            Respondents until October 13, 2022. Further, Petitioner's counsel did not move this Court until eleven

            ( I I) months after the claim arose on May 16, 2 023 when he filed the in st ant Petition.

                          Petitioner's counsel argues that it did not know that the accident included Respondent's

            bus rather he believed the accident included another private vehicle. Petitioner's affidavit of merit

            further attests that he was concentrating on his medical treatment and did not know that a notice of

             15445712023 WILLIAMS, MATTHEW vs. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY ET AL                     Page 2 of 5
             Motion No. 001

                                                             2 of 5
[* 2]
                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 154457/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 33                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/10/2024

           claim was required. These arguments are unavailing. As ignorance of the law does not constitute a

           legitimate reason and the accident exchange form Petitioner received the date of the accident

           unequivocally states that it is from MT A/ NYC Transit (see e.g. Rodriguez v. New York City Health &

           Hosps. Corp., 78 AD3d 53 8 [ I st Dept 201 O]; see also Bell v. City of New York, 100 AD3d 990 l2d

           Dept 2012]).

                          Accordingly, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the delay in serving

           the required notice of claim and the notice of claim served in October 22 is deemed a nullity as it was

           not served within the 90-day window and it was done without leave of court (see General Municipal

           Law §50-e; McCarty v. City ofl\'ew York, 44 AD3d 447 [1 st Dept 2007 ); see also Wollin.s v. ,Vew York

           City Bd. of Educ., 8 AD3d 30 [I st Dept 2004]).

           Knowledge of the Claim and Substantial Prejudice

                          In support that Respondents had notice of the essential facts of Petitioner's claim,

           Petitioner submits police report and an MTA/ NYC Transit accident exchange form.             Petitioner's

           counsel also improperly in his reply papers submits photographs of the accident. The police report

           documents an accident between Petitioner's vehicle and Respondents' public bus. Notably the police

           report does not make any references that Petitioner reported any injuries or that an ambulance or EMS

           were present. The accident exchange form includes the date of the accident, the insurance information

           for the bus driver and the address and phone number to the New York City's Transit's Legal

           Department. The photographs submitted show damage to Petitioner's vehicle by Respondent's bus.

                   Upon review, a police report alone is not always sufficient to infer a potential actionable

           wrong for personal injury (see e.g. Clarke v. Veolia Transportation Servs., Inc., 204 AD3d 66612d

           Dept 2022]; Alexander v. ]\lew York City Transit Auth., 200 J\D3d 509 [1st Dept 2021 J; Evans v. New

           York City Hous. Auth., 176 AD2d 22 l[lst Dept 1991]). However, here Respondent's vehicle is a

           large bus weighting many tons and the police report establishes, and it is undisputed by the drivers,

            15445712023 WILLIAMS, MATTHEW vs. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY ET AL                  Page 3 of 5
            Motion No. 001

                                                             3 of 5
[* 3]
                                                                                                      INDEX NO. 154457/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 33                                                                          RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/10/2024

           that a collision occurred between Respondent's large bus and Petitioner's small vehicle. Thus in

           light of the police report, the photographs depicting more than minor damage to Petitioner's vehicle

           and Petitioner's affidavit attesting that an investigation by Respondents was conducted, this Court

           finds that Respondents had sufficient facts to infer committing a potential actionable wrong for more

           than just property damage but also for personal injury (see e.g. lhomas v. City o_f]Ve,v York, 118

           AD3d 537 15 1 Dept 2014; see also l!arding v Yonkers Central School District, 95 NYS3d 279 [2nd

           Dept 20191).

                   As to any substantial prejudice to Respondents, this Court further finds that since Respondents

           had knowledge or the facts constituting potential personal injury claims, Respondents will not be

           substantially prejudiced by a late notice of claim as they maintain and operate the bus systems, have

           access to the time, date and location or the alleged ace ident, the bus driver, the bus video recordings,

           and conducted an initial investigation while all the evidence was freshly available (see Malter o_f

           Orozco v City of,\Tew York, 200 AD3d 559 [1st Dept 202 !"I).

                          Accordingly, while this Court is not pleased with the delay by Petitioner's counsel and

           with his unprocedural sound reply submissions, this Court nonetheless finds that the Petitioner has a

           legitimate personal injury claim. It further finds that Respondents with its investigation the date of the

           accident and with the police report had knowledge to infer a potential personal injury wrong and will

           not be prejudiced in mounting a fair defense (see Porcaro, 20 AD3d 357: Orozco, 200 AD3d 559).

                   It is hereby

                   ORDERED that this Petition seeking to serve a late notice or claim upon the Respondents is

           granted; and it is further

                   ORDERED that within 20 days from the entry of this order, Petitioner shall serve a copy of

           this order with notice of entry upon all parties and the Clerk of the Court (60 Centre Street, Room

            154457/2023 WILLIAMS, MA TT HEW vs. NEW YORK CITY TRANS IT AUTHORITY ET AL                Page 4 of 5
            Motion No. 001

                                                            4 of 5
[* 4]
                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 154457/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 33                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/10/2024

           1418) and the Clerk of the General Clerk's Office (60 Centre Street, Room 119), who are directed to

           mark the court's records; and it is further

                    ORDERED that such service upon the Clerk of the Court and the Clerk of the General Clerk's

           Office shall be made in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Protocol on Courthouse and

           County Clerk Procedures for Electronically Filed Cases (accessible at the "E-Filing'' page on the

           court's website).

                   4/10/2024
                     DATE                                                       DEN~INGUEZ, J.S.C.

                                                                       ~
            CHECK ONE:                    CASE DISPOSED                    NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                          GRANTED         □ DENIED         GRANTED IN PART         □ OTHER
            APPLICATION:                  SETTLE ORDER                     SUBMIT ORDER

            CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:         INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN       FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT    □ REFERENCE

            15445712023 WILLIAMS, MATTHEW vs. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY ET AL                  Page 5 of 5
            Motion No. 001

                                                            5 of 5
[* 5]