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
A missed 90-day deadline does not always end a case. Here, the driver of a car hit by a New York City Transit Authority bus missed the deadline, but a passenger on the bus had served her own timely Notice of Claim, which gave the authority actual knowledge of the essential facts, and the authority made no showing that the delay hurt its defense.
The case
- Court
- Appellate Division, Second Department
- Decided
- September 30, 2026
- Case
- Matter of Tkebuchava v New York City Tr. Auth.
- Citation
- 2026 NY Slip Op 05543
- Official text
- Read the decision on the New York courts’ official reporter site
The facts
The petitioner said that on April 16, 2024, his vehicle was stopped at a red light when a bus owned by the Transit Authority, making a left turn, hit it. On May 1, 2024, he served a notice of claim on the Metropolitan Transportation Authority and MTA Bus Company. MTA Bus Company wrote back on May 14, 2024, that it was not the proper party. About October 8, 2024, he asked the court for leave to serve a late notice of claim on the Transit Authority. He submitted a notice of claim that a passenger on the bus had timely served on the Transit Authority about the same accident. The police report attached to it identified the petitioner as the other driver and said four bus passengers were taken to the hospital for evaluation. The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied his petition, and he appealed.
The holding
The Second Department reversed and granted the petition. Because the passenger’s timely notice set out the basic facts and an explicit claim of negligence against the authority, “the petitioner demonstrated that NYCTA had actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the petitioner’s claim” (2026 NY Slip Op 05543, *2). The authority made no particularized showing of prejudice, and with actual knowledge and no prejudice, the lack of a reasonable excuse for the delay “did not serve as a bar to granting leave to serve a late notice of claim” (id., quoting the court’s earlier decision in Matter of Manbodh v New York City Tr. Auth.).
What changed
Nothing new: this applies settled law. The court applied the three factors it weighs on a late notice (actual knowledge, a reasonable excuse, and prejudice), citing its earlier decisions.
What it means
- The 90-day notice deadline is not always the end of a claim. A court may allow a late notice after weighing whether the agency learned the essential facts within 90 days or a reasonable time after, whether there is a reasonable excuse for the delay, and whether the delay would substantially prejudice the agency’s defense.
- The court said the agency’s actual knowledge is “of great importance” among those factors. Here, the agency learned the essential facts from another injured person’s timely notice and the police report attached to it.
- Once that knowledge was shown, the driver met his first burden on prejudice, and the agency had to answer with specific evidence of prejudice. It did not.
- This result depended on what the agency already had. A person who misses the deadline cannot count on it.
Our view
Commentary by Frank N. Eskesen. This section is opinion.
This was the right result in this case, but mainly due to luck. Had a passenger on the bus not served her own timely Notice of Claim, the outcome might have been different. While it is always preferable to serve timely, this case reminds us, in two ways, why it is important to promptly seek legal counsel after an accident. 1. When municipalities or public authorities are involved, Notice of Claim deadlines are very short. 2. Even when a short deadline is missed, under the right circumstances, a late Notice of Claim may be allowed, but immediate action may be required.
Topics
Court: Second Department. Year: 2026. Statutes: General Municipal Law § 50-e. Result: reversed.
Reviewed by Frank N. Eskesen, admitted in New York since 2000. Decided September 30, 2026. Posted October 5, 2026.
Questions about your own accident?
Call us for a free consultation. Calls answered live 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.