This page summarizes and comments on a published court decision. It is general information, not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case depends on its own facts. Unless this page says otherwise, The Eskesen Law Firm did not represent any party in this case.
Bottom line
When the 90-day deadline to serve a Notice of Claim on the City is missed, a court deciding whether to allow a late one weighs whether the City learned the essential facts of the claim in time, and a record showing only that an accident happened may not be enough. Here, the First Department affirmed the denial of a motorcyclist’s request to serve a late Notice of Claim, because the police records he relied on did not mention any wrongful acts by officers, and he offered no medical records to support his claim that his injuries kept him from serving on time.
The case
- Court
- Appellate Division, First Department
- Decided
- October 29, 2026
- Case
- Matter of Connolly v City of New York
- Citation
- 2026 NY Slip Op 06383
- Official text
- Read the decision on the New York courts’ official reporter site
The facts
The petitioner asked the Supreme Court, Bronx County, for leave to serve a late Notice of Claim on the City of New York and others over a crash involving his motorcycle and a police vehicle. He relied on the police accident report, the record of his arrest, and the criminal complaint against him. According to the court, those documents established only “that police officers were present on the scene, and that petitioner’s motorcycle crashed into a stopped police vehicle” (2026 NY Slip Op 06383, *1). He also claimed incapacity, but his own affidavit said that he was able to attend court appearances and medical treatments, and that he would have served on time had he known of the 90-day requirement. The court denied his request, and he appealed.
The holding
The First Department unanimously affirmed. The petitioner “failed to sustain his burden of establishing that respondent The City of New York had actual knowledge of the essential facts of his claim within 90 days of accrual or within a reasonable time afterward” (id., citing Matter of Jaime v City of New York). The police records did not give the City that knowledge, because “the documents make no mention of acts that would constitute actionable wrongdoing by any police officers” (id.). He relied only on that supposed knowledge to show a lack of prejudice, so “the burden never shifted to the City to make a particularized showing of prejudice” (id.). And because he “did not provide any medical records or other evidence corroborating his claim of incapacity,” he “failed to provide a reasonable excuse” (id.). His claim of incapacity was also “undercut by his own affidavit” (id.).
What changed
Nothing new: this applies settled law, including the Court of Appeals’ decision in Matter of Jaime v City of New York (41 NY3d 531 [2024]).
What it means
- A claim against the City generally requires a Notice of Claim served within 90 days. A court may allow a late one after weighing whether the City learned the essential facts in time, whether there is a reasonable excuse, and whether the delay hurt the City’s defense.
- A police report can show that the City knew about an accident. It does not necessarily show that the City knew of a claim that its officers did something wrong.
- An excuse based on being too hurt to act needs medical records or other proof.
Our view
Commentary by Frank N. Eskesen. This section is opinion.
This is our third recent entry in which a report of the accident did not give a public body “actual knowledge” of the claim. In Matter of Defonce v Village of Port Chester (Second Department, October 7), another police department’s report was not enough; in Matter of T. C. v New York City Department of Education (Second Department, October 28), the reports, including the school’s own, showed an accident, not a claim. Here, a police vehicle was the one the motorcycle struck, and officers were at the scene. Even so, the records did not describe anything the officers did that could make the City responsible. In our view, a police report is a record of what happened, written for its own purposes; it is not a Notice of Claim. At the very least, the records have to point to something the officers did wrong, enough to alert the City that it may need to investigate a claim against it. We note, too, that his own affidavit said he would have served on time had he known of the 90-day requirement; the court read that as undercutting his claim that he was too hurt to act. Two lessons. 1. If you are hurt in a crash involving a City vehicle, or on City property, get legal advice promptly, even while you are dealing with medical care and everything else; the 90 days run regardless. 2. For lawyers, a late notice application that rests on actual knowledge needs a record that shows the claimed wrong, not just the accident, and an incapacity excuse needs medical records. Ninety days go by quickly.
Topics
Court: First Department. Year: 2026. Result: affirmed.
Reviewed by Frank N. Eskesen, admitted in New York since 2000. Decided October 29, 2026. Posted November 1, 2026.
Questions about your own accident?
Call us for a free consultation. Calls answered live 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.