Mann v. Erie County Med. Ctr. Corp.
Opinion
| Mann v Erie County Med. Ctr. Corp. |
| 2025 NY Slip Op 02434 |
| Decided on April 25, 2025 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth 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 on April 25, 2025 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., BANNISTER, GREENWOOD, NOWAK, AND KEANE, JJ.
20 CA 24-00255
v
ERIE COUNTY MEDICAL CENTER CORPORATION, ERIE COUNTY MEDICAL CENTER, RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS, ET AL., RESPONDENT.
ROACH, BROWN, MCCARTHY & GRUBER, P.C., BUFFALO (KAYLA A. HUGHES OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS.
LOTEMPIO P.C. LAW GROUP, BUFFALO (CLAUDIA M. RODR OF COUNSEL), FOR CLAIMANT-RESPONDENT.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Dennis E. Ward, J.), entered September 13, 2023. The order granted the application of claimant for leave to serve a late notice of claim.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Contrary to the contention of respondents-appellants (respondents), Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in granting claimant's application for leave to serve a late notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50—e (5). Although claimant failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for failing to serve a timely notice of claim (see Matter of Hampson v Connetquot Cent. Sch. Dist., 114 AD3d 790, 791 [2d Dept 2014]; Brown v City of Buffalo, 100 AD3d 1439, 1440 [4th Dept 2012]), that failure " 'is not fatal where . . . actual notice was had and there is no compelling showing of prejudice to [respondents]' " (Matter of Mary Beth B. v West Genesee Cent. Sch. Dist., 186 AD3d 979, 980 [4th Dept 2020]; see Shaul v Hamburg Cent. Sch. Dist., 128 AD3d 1389, 1389 [4th Dept 2015]). Here, claimant "made a persuasive showing that [respondents] acquired [timely] actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim" (Shaul, 128 AD3d at 1389 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Hall v Madison-Oneida County Bd. of Coop. Educ. Servs., 66 AD3d 1434, 1435 [4th Dept 2009]). Claimant also "met her initial burden by presenting 'some evidence or plausible argument that supports a finding of no substantial prejudice' " (Arnold v Town of Camillus, 222 AD3d 1372, 1379 [4th Dept 2023], quoting Matter of Newcomb v Middle Country Cent. Sch. Dist., 28 NY3d 455, 466 [2016], rearg denied 29 NY3d 963 [2017]), and respondents failed to " 'respond with a particularized evidentiary showing that [they would] be substantially prejudiced if the late notice [was] allowed' " (Matter of Antoinette C. v County of Erie, 202 AD3d 1464, 1468 [4th Dept 2022], quoting Newcomb, 28 NY3d at 467; see Brege v Town of Tonawanda, 148 AD3d 1792, 1793 [4th Dept 2017]).
Finally, we have reviewed respondents' remaining contention and conclude that it lacks merit.
Entered: April 25, 2025
Ann Dillon Flynn
Clerk of the Court
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
2025 NY Slip Op 02434 (Mann v. Erie County Med. Ctr. Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.