Gonnella v. State of New York
This text of Gonnella v. State of New York (Gonnella v. State of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
Gonnella v State of New York
2026 NY Slip Op 04181
July 1, 2026
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
Lindsay Gonnella, et al., appellants,
v
State of New York, respondent. (Claim No. 100703)
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Decided on July 1, 2026
2025-01200
Mark C. Dillon, J.P.
Valerie Brathwaite Nelson
Carl J. Landicino
Susan Quirk, JJ.
Sullivan Papain Block McManus Coffinas & Cannavo P.C., New York, NY (Stephen C. Glasser and Christopher J. DelliCarpini of counsel), for appellants.
Letitia James, Attorney General, New York, NY (Matthew W. Grieco and David Lawrence III of counsel), for respondent.
DECISION & ORDER
In a claim to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the claimants appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Gina M. Lopez-Summa, J.), dated November 22, 2024. The order denied the claimants' motion for leave to file a late claim pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10(6).
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, and the claimants' motion for leave to file a late claim pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10(6) is granted.
The claimant Lindsay Gonnella (hereinafter the injured claimant) allegedly was injured on November 1, 2023, when she tripped and fell on a broken metal support pole embedded in a roadway in Hicksville, in the Town of Oyster Bay. The injured claimant, and her husband suing derivatively, filed timely notices of claims against the County of Nassau and the Town and commenced an action against them. In March 2024, the claimants moved for leave to file a late claim against the State of New York pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10(6), alleging that they recently discovered that the State owned the section of the roadway where the injured claimant fell. In an order dated November 22, 2024, the Court of Claims denied the motion, finding that, while the other statutory factors were in their favor, the claimants failed to provide a reasonable excuse for the delay in filing the claim and they failed to demonstrate that the claim was meritorious. The claimants appeal.
In order to assert a claim against the State to recover damages for personal injuries based upon the State's alleged negligence, the claimant must serve the claim or a notice of intention to file a claim within 90 days after the claim accrued (see Court of Claims Act § 10[3]). Court of Claims Act § 10(6) permits a court, in its discretion, to allow a claimant to file a late claim, so long as the statute of limitations has not expired. The statute directs the court to consider, "among other factors, [1] whether the delay in filing the claim was excusable; [2] whether the state had notice of the essential facts constituting the claim; [3] whether the state had an opportunity to investigate the circumstances underlying the claim; [4] whether the claim appears to be meritorious; [5] whether the failure to file or serve upon the attorney general a timely claim or . . . notice of intention resulted in substantial prejudice to the state; and [6] whether the claimant has any other available remedy" [*2](id.).
Here, the Court of Claims properly rejected the claimants' contention that they had a reasonable excuse for their failure to serve a claim or notice of intention in a timely fashion, as the mistaken belief that the road upon which the accident occurred was a town road rather than a State highway did not constitute a reasonable excuse for the delay in filing a claim against the State (see Gatti v State of New York, 90 AD2d 840, 840; see also Grasse v State of New York, 228 AD3d 1028, 1029-1030; cf. Weaver v State of New York, 112 AD2d 416, 418).
However, contrary to the conclusion of the Court of Claims, the claimants' submissions were sufficient, at this juncture, to establish that the claims appear to be meritorious within the meaning of Court of Claims Act § 10(6). "The appearance of merit is a significant factor in the determination of whether to grant leave to file a late claim because 'it would be futile to permit the filing of a legally deficient claim which would be subject to immediate dismissal, even if the other factors tend to favor the granting of the request'" (Swart v State of New York, 211 AD3d 881, 883, quoting Prusack v State of New York, 117 AD2d 729, 730). Here, notwithstanding the State's contentions regarding certain legal weaknesses in the claimants' causes of action (see id.; Schnier v New York State Thruway Auth., 205 AD3d 958, 961), the claim is not "'patently groundless, frivolous[,] or legally defective, and the record as a whole . . . give[s] reasonable cause to believe that a valid cause of action exists'" (Swart v State of New York, 211 AD3d at 883, quoting Sands v State of New York, 49 AD3d 444, 444; see Tucholski v State of New York, 122 AD3d 612, 612).
Accordingly, as the other enumerated factors were resolved in favor of the claimants, which the State does not dispute, the Court of Claims should have granted the claimants' motion for leave to file a late claim pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10(6).
DILLON, J.P., BRATHWAITE NELSON, LANDICINO and QUIRK, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Darrell M. Joseph
Clerk of the Court
Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Gonnella v. State of New York, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gonnella-v-state-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2026.