Background
On November 1, 2023, Lindsay Gonnella tripped and fell on a broken metal support pole embedded in a roadway in Hicksville, in the Town of Oyster Bay. She and her husband (suing derivatively) timely filed notices of claim against Nassau County and the Town of Oyster Bay within the 90-day period required under General Municipal Law § 50-e, and commenced an action against those defendants. In March 2024—after the 90-day period for claims against the State had passed—the claimants sought leave to file a late claim against the State of New York pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10(6), alleging they had recently discovered that the State, not the Town or County, owned the section of roadway where the accident occurred.
The Court of Claims (Lopez-Summa, J.) denied the motion. It found that while other statutory factors favored the claimants, they lacked a reasonable excuse for failing to timely identify the State as the road’s owner. The Court of Claims also found that the claimants had not adequately demonstrated the apparent merits of their claim. The claimants appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Second Department reversed and granted leave to file the late claim. Court of Claims Act § 10(6) lists six factors for courts to weigh in exercising discretion on late-claim motions, including: (1) whether the delay was excusable; (2) whether the State had notice of the essential facts; (3) whether the State had opportunity to investigate; (4) whether the claim appears meritorious; (5) whether the delay caused substantial prejudice to the State; and (6) whether the claimant has any other available remedy. The statute expressly notes that no single factor is determinative.
The court agreed with the Court of Claims that mistakenly believing the road to be a town or county road (rather than a state highway) does not constitute a reasonable excuse for failing to timely file against the State. However, it disagreed on the merits factor—which it characterized as “a significant factor” because it would be futile to allow filing of a legally deficient claim that would face immediate dismissal. The Second Department found the claimants’ submissions sufficient to establish the apparent merits of the claim at this preliminary stage. The State’s arguments about legal weaknesses in the causes of action did not conclusively defeat the merits showing at the § 10(6) stage. Balancing the factors—with no reasonable excuse weighed against apparent merits, minimal prejudice to the State (which owned the road and had opportunity to investigate), and the claimants’ lack of an alternative remedy against the State—the court exercised its discretion to grant leave.
Key Takeaways
- A claimant’s mistaken belief about which government entity owns the site of an injury does not constitute a reasonable excuse for missing the 90-day deadline under Court of Claims Act § 10(6)—but that deficit does not automatically doom the late-claim motion if other factors, including apparent merits, weigh in the claimant’s favor.
- “Apparent merits” under § 10(6) is a threshold showing, not a merits determination: the claimant need only demonstrate that the claim is not legally deficient on its face and would not face immediate dismissal if filed; the State’s legal arguments about the claim’s weakness do not defeat this showing unless they conclusively establish no viable theory.
- The absence of a reasonable excuse can be overcome by other § 10(6) factors, particularly when the State is a large infrastructure owner with notice of a road-condition incident through related claims against municipal co-defendants, and the claimant will lose all remedy if the application is denied.
- Personal injury counsel discovering a State-ownership issue after suing municipal defendants should move for leave to file a late claim immediately; delay in seeking § 10(6) relief after discovering the State’s role will count against the application.
Why It Matters
Navigating the State’s sovereign immunity regime and the Court of Claims Act’s strict notice requirements is among the most technically demanding aspects of New York personal injury practice. Injured claimants—and their counsel—frequently miss the 90-day window against the State while timely pursuing what appear to be the responsible municipal entities, only to discover mid-litigation that a state agency owns the relevant infrastructure. This decision reaffirms that New York appellate courts will look at the totality of the § 10(6) factors and will not mechanically deny late-claim motions simply because no reasonable excuse exists for the delay, particularly where (as here) the claimant appears to have a viable underlying cause of action and the State is not prejudiced.
For plaintiffs’ personal injury counsel, the practical lesson is to conduct thorough ownership research on all potentially state-owned infrastructure (state highways, bridges, parks, and state campus grounds) at the outset of any trip-and-fall or highway-defect investigation—not just after municipal defendants are sued. Confirming road ownership through the New York State DOT mapping system and county records early in the investigation can prevent the need for a § 10(6) application altogether.