A New York appellate court has ruled in favor of a woman who filed a late notice of claim after tripping and falling on a cracked sidewalk. The decision, made on November 4, 2026, by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, affects Martha Arcila, who alleged that her injury was due to the negligence of the Town of North Hempstead and Nassau County. The court's ruling is significant as it clarifies the conditions under which late notices of claim can be accepted.

The case, identified as Matter of Arcila v. Town of North Hempstead (Docket No. 2025-00032), arose after Arcila tripped on an uneven sidewalk in Roslyn Heights on November 30, 2023. She served a notice of claim on the town and county on February 29, 2024, just one day after the 90-day statutory period for filing such claims had expired. After the Supreme Court denied her petition to serve a late notice of claim, Arcila appealed the decision.

In New York, a claimant must serve a notice of claim within 90 days after the event that caused the injury, as outlined in General Municipal Law § 50-e(1)(a). However, the law allows for the possibility of extending this period under certain circumstances, as stated in § 50-e(5). This provision permits courts to grant leave for late notices of claim if the claimant can demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the delay and if the municipality had actual knowledge of the essential facts of the claim within the required timeframe.

Arcila's case was initially dismissed by the Supreme Court, which ruled that her petition did not meet the necessary criteria. However, the appellate court found that the town and county had acquired actual knowledge of the claim shortly after the 90-day period expired. The court highlighted that the notice of claim included specific details about the accident, such as the time, place, and nature of the incident.

The court ruled, "the respondents acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within a reasonable time after the expiration of the 90-day period."

This ruling was based on the understanding that the municipality's awareness of the claim's details would mitigate any potential prejudice to their ability to defend against the claim. The court also noted that Arcila had provided a reasonable excuse for the one-day delay in filing her notice of claim, citing an error made by her attorney's office regarding the filing deadline.

The appellate court reversed the lower court's decision and granted Arcila's request to deem the late notice of claim timely served. However, it denied her request to serve a new late notice of claim as unnecessary since the court had already recognized the original notice.

This ruling has implications for future cases involving late notices of claim, particularly in injury cases against public entities. It underscores the importance of municipalities having actual knowledge of claims and the flexibility courts have in allowing late filings when justified.

Going forward, this decision may encourage other claimants who miss the 90-day deadline to seek relief from the courts, especially if they can demonstrate that the municipality was aware of the claim's essential facts. It also emphasizes the need for legal counsel to be diligent in adhering to filing deadlines to avoid complications.

Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether the ruling could be appealed or if there are related cases pending. However, the court's decision sets a precedent that could influence similar cases in the future.