Opinion
Decided July 7, 1988
Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, Barry Salman, J.
Arnold E. DiJoseph, III, for appellant.
Peter L. Zimroth, Corporation Counsel (Dana Martine Robbins of counsel), for respondent.
MEMORANDUM.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
The lower courts did not abuse their discretion in denying plaintiff's motion to file a late notice of claim. Under General Municipal Law § 50-e (5), the trial court has discretion to extend the time to serve a late notice of claim in a proper case, and the statute permits the court to consider, among all other relevant facts and circumstances, whether the municipality had actual knowledge of the facts constituting the claim within the 90-day statutory period.
The trial court considered and appropriately rejected plaintiff's purely speculative contention that the City had actual notice of the accident. Plaintiff failed to sustain his burden of establishing that the City acquired knowledge of the accident within a reasonable time, conclusorily alleging the existence of an accident report and offering no reliable basis to support his claim that the accident was reported to the City building inspectors who were assigned to the work site.
Plaintiff's other contentions are without merit.
Chief Judge WACHTLER and Judges SIMONS, KAYE, ALEXANDER, TITONE, HANCOCK, JR., and BELLACOSA concur.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 N.Y.CRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.