Filed Date: 6/1/2004
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/1/2024
In a proceeding pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e for leave to serve a late notice of claim, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Polizzi, J.), dated June 16, 2003, which denied the petition.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The petitioner failed to establish that the respondent had timely notice of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days of its accrual or a reasonable time thereafter. Assuming
Furthermore, the petitioner’s assertions that he was unfamiliar with the statutory requirement for serving a timely notice of claim and that he did not speak English were unacceptable excuses for his failure to timely serve a notice of claim {see Gilliam v City of New York, 250 AD2d 680 [1998]; Matter of Lamper v City of New York, 215 AD2d 484 [1995]).
Finally, the petitioner failed to rebut the City’s assertion that the delay prejudiced its ability to investigate and defend against the claim {see Matter of Nairne v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 303 AD2d 409, 410 [2003]). Florio, J.P., Krausman, Townes, Mastro and Fisher, JJ., concur.