ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE [AI] IS NOT USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IN PREPARING NYPPL SUMMARIES OF JUDICIAL AND QUASI-JUDICIAL DECISIONS

June 10, 2024

As Plaintiff received inpatient and rehabilitative treatment for more than two months following an accident he was found to have a reasonable excuse for the delay in his motion to serve a late notice of claim

 

Matter of Talavera v New York City Tr. Auth.

2024 NY Slip Op 03098

Decided on June 06, 2024

Appellate Division, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided and Entered: June 06, 2024
Before: Kern, J.P., Moulton, Friedman, González, Pitt-Burke, JJ.


Index No. 155051/23 Appeal No. 2443 Case No. 2024-00448

In the Matter of Angel Talavera, Petitioner-Respondent,

v

New York City Transit Authority et al., Respondents-Appellants.


Anna J. Ervolina, MTA Law Department, Brooklyn (Theresa A. Frame of counsel), for appellants.

Mischel & Horn, P.C., New York (Lauren E. Bryant of counsel), for respondent.


Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Denise M. Dominguez, J.), entered January 17, 2024, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted petitioner's motion to serve a late notice of claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting petitioner leave to file a late notice of claim (General Municipal Law § 50-e[5]). Petitioner served respondents only two days after expiration of the 90-day time limit and made the application for leave to file a late of claim less than a week later. Not only was the delay minimal, but plaintiff received inpatient and rehabilitative treatment for more than two months following the accident, and therefore had a reasonable excuse for the delay (see Matter of Rijos v New York City Tr. Auth., AD3d , 2024 NY Slip Op 02510 [1st Dept 2024]; Matter of Mejia v New York City Tr. Auth., 224 AD3d 546, 546 [1st Dept 2024]). Moreover, neither party disputes that respondents were aware of the accident, which was witnessed by the train conductor and investigated by a New York City police officer in the transit branch. Thus, respondents had the opportunity to timely investigate the essential facts (id.).

We reject respondents' contention that the motion court should not have considered petitioner's medical records. The medical records, which petitioner submitted at the court's direction, constituted evidence to corroborate his application, not to improperly advance a new argument or theory of liability.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: June 6, 2024


 

CAUTION

Subsequent court and administrative rulings, or changes to laws, rules and regulations may have modified or clarified or vacated or reversed the information and, or, decisions summarized in NYPPL. For example, New York State Department of Civil Service's Advisory Memorandum 24-08 reflects changes required as the result of certain amendments to §72 of the New York State Civil Service Law to take effect January 1, 2025 [See Chapter 306 of the Laws of 2024]. Advisory Memorandum 24-08 in PDF format is posted on the Internet at https://www.cs.ny.gov/ssd/pdf/AM24-08Combined.pdf. Accordingly, the information and case summaries should be Shepardized® or otherwise checked to make certain that the most recent information is being considered by the reader.
THE MATERIAL ON THIS WEBSITE IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY. AGAIN, CHANGES IN LAWS, RULES, REGULATIONS AND NEW COURT AND ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS MAY AFFECT THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS LAWBLOG. THE MATERIAL PRESENTED IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND THE USE OF ANY MATERIAL POSTED ON THIS WEBSITE, OR CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING SUCH MATERIAL, DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP.
NYPPL Blogger Harvey Randall served as Principal Attorney, New York State Department of Civil Service; Director of Personnel, SUNY Central Administration; Director of Research, Governor’s Office of Employee Relations; and Staff Judge Advocate General, New York Guard. Consistent with the Declaration of Principles jointly adopted by a Committee of the American Bar Association and a Committee of Publishers and Associations, the material posted to this blog is presented with the understanding that neither the publisher nor NYPPL and, or, its staff and contributors are providing legal advice to the reader and in the event legal or other expert assistance is needed, the reader is urged to seek such advice from a knowledgeable professional.
New York Public Personnel Law. Email: publications@nycap.rr.com