Matter of Ky Tong Tang v. New York City Tr. Auth.

2026 NY Slip Op 00334

• Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
• Decided: January 27, 2026
• Docket: Index No. 160343/23; Appeal No. 5675; Case No. 2025-00155
• Status: Published

Opinion

Matter of Ky Tong Tang v New York City Tr. Auth. (2026 NY Slip Op 00334)

Matter of Ky Tong Tang v New York City Tr. Auth.

2026 NY Slip Op 00334

Decided on January 27, 2026

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: January 27, 2026
Before: Moulton, J.P., Mendez, Rodriguez, Rosado, Hagler, JJ.

Index No. 160343/23|Appeal No. 5675|Case No. 2025-00155|

[*1]In the Matter of Ky Tong Tang et al., Petitioners-Respondents,

v

New York City Transit Authority, Respondent-Appellant.

Anna J. Ervolina, Deputy General Counsel-Torts, MTA Law Department, Brooklyn (Adrienne Yaron of counsel), for appellant.

Rosenbaum & Rosenbaum, P.C., New York (Erica M. Martini of counsel), for respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard A. Tsai, J.), entered December 10, 2024, which granted petitioners' motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim upon respondent New York City Transit Authority, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court providently exercised its discretion in granting petitioners' motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim where they moved for leave 27 days after the 90-day deadline (see Matter of Sproule v New York Convention Ctr. Operating Corp., 180 AD3d 496, 497 [1st Dept 2020]; Matter of Richardson v New York City Hous. Auth., 136 AD3d 484, 485 [1st Dept 2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 905 [2016]). The delay was reasonable, particularly in light of the type of accident, namely, a traffic accident between two buses that a New York City police officer investigated (see Matter of Mejia v New York City Tr. Auth., 224 AD3d 546 [1st Dept 2024], lv denied 42 NY3d 1029 [2024]). Further, petitioners' excuse, a mistaken reliance on the police report in determining who operated the municipal bus route, was not unreasonable (see generally Matter of Sokolowski v New York City Hous. Auth., 173 AD2d 239, 239 [1st Dept 1991]).

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

ENTERED: January 27, 2026