Petitioner served a notice of claim on the City two days late, and then waited almost a full year before moving for leave to file the late claim, giving no explanation at all for the delay. The City is prejudiced by weather-related changes in the condition of the allegedly defective sidewalk during the period of delay (cf., Matter of Sutton v Town of Schuyler Falls, 185 AD2d 430, 431-432), and by its inability to identify and interview witnesses (see, Aviles v City of New York, 202 AD2d 530, 532, lv denied 84 NY2d 813). Denial of the motion to file a late notice of claim in these circumstances was not an improvident exercise of discretion (see, Zapata v City of New York, 225 AD2d 543). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Wallach, Ross and Nardelli, JJ.
Lynne Crowell, Appellant, v. City of New York, Respondent
228 A.D.2d 322644 N.Y.S.2d 231
Authorities cited
No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.