You are here: / / Plaintiff Was Properly Allowed to File a Late Notice of Claim—Criteria...
, ,

Plaintiff Was Properly Allowed to File a Late Notice of Claim—Criteria Explained

The Second Department determined plaintiff was properly allowed to file a late notice of claim in a medical malpractice action.  Plaintiff’s baby died in utero days after the plaintiff had gone to the hospital complaining of decreased fetal movement and was assured all was well. Plaintiff asked the hospital repeatedly for the autopsy report, beginning shortly after the baby died. The autopsy report was finally provided many months later.  Within a few days of receiving the autopsy report, the plaintiff sought permission to file a late notice of claim. The Second Department noted that the hospital had acquired actual notice of the substance of the claim within 90 days (demonstrated by the medical records), plaintiff’s inability to gain access to the autopsy report was a reasonable excuse for the delay, and the hospital was not prejudiced by the six-month delay because witnesses remained available and there was no showing memories had faded:

In determining whether to grant an application for leave to serve a late notice of claim or to deem a late notice of claim timely served nunc pro tunc, the court must consider all relevant circumstances, including whether (1) the public corporation acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days after the claim arose or a reasonable time thereafter, (2) the claimant demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim, and (3) the delay would substantially prejudice the public corporation in its defense on the merits (see General Municipal Law § 50-e[5]..). “While the presence or the absence of any one of the factors is not necessarily determinative, whether the municipality had actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim is of great importance” … . “A petition for leave to serve a late notice of claim is addressed to the sound discretion of the court” … . * * *

…[T]he petitioner made a sufficient showing that HHC had actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting her claims within 90 days of accrual or within a reasonable time thereafter. “In medical malpractice cases, when the medical records themselves contain facts that detail both the procedures used and the claimant’s injuries, and suggest that the relevant public corporation may be responsible for those injuries, the public corporation will be held to have had actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim” … . The Supreme Court noted that the petition would have been stronger had she submitted an expert affirmation in support of it, but the court nonetheless concluded that the basic facts underlying the malpractice claims could be gleaned from the petitioner’s medical records. We agree. Matter of Rojas v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 02975, 2nd Dept 4-8-15

 

You might also like
FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED.
PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY OF NEW YORK SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS LEAD-PAINT EXPOSURE CASE; THE PLAINTIFF WAS EXPOSED TO LEAD IN AN APARTMENT OWNED BY THE NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY (NYCHA), AN ENTITY SEPARATE FROM THE CITY; THEREFORE THE UNDERLYING CLAIM WAS PATENTLY MERITLESS (SECOND DEPT).
AFTER THE JURY HAD FOUND DEFENDANT DID NOT VIOLATE LABOR LAW 240 (1), THE APPELLATE COURT DETERMINED PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION AT THE OUTSET, PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A LADDER WHEN THE LADDER SHIFTED.
BANK’S PROOF OF STANDING DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE.
THE ADDITIONAL NOTICE REQUIREMENT IN CPLR 3215(G)(4) DOES NOT APPLY TO SERVICE UPON A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, AS OPPOSED TO A CORPORATION (SECOND DEPT).
THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY PLAINTIFF DID NOT IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S SLIP AND FALL; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BANK FAILED TO SHOW COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF THE MORTGAGE AGREEMENT AND RPAPL 1304; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
ATTORNEY LETTERS DID NOT CONSTITUTE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHICH WOULD SUPPORT A MOTION TO DISMISS (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Pre-Discovery Motion for Summary Judgment Should Have Been Granted—Defendant... Failure to Empanel the First Six Jurors Chosen by the Parties Justified Setting...