The Appellate Division said Petitioner's motion should have been denied by the Supreme Court, noting:
1. The Respondent City of New York did not own the property where Petitioner alleged he was injured and the New York City Housing Authority [NYCHA] owned the property.
2. The motion for leave to file a late notice of claim against NYCHA should have been denied by Supreme Court "because [Petitioner} failed to establish any of the relevant statutory factors that would warrant leave to serve a late notice of claim."
3. Petitioner did not show that NYCHA acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within the statutory period, or a reasonable time thereafter.
4. There was no evidence that NYCHA received Petitioner's workers' compensation claim forms, which, in any event, make no mention of the allegations against NYCHA.
5. Petitioner's contention that he did not learn of the seriousness of his shoulder injury until months later did not constitute a reasonable excuse for his delay in serving a notice of claim in view of the fact he filed the workers' compensation claim a few weeks after the accident.
6. Petitioner failed to demonstrate the lack of substantial prejudice to NYCHA through the photographs he took of the accident area and of the scaffold on which he was allegedly injured.
Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.