In a recent decision, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York ruled against Jenny M. Berrezueta Quilli, who sought to serve a late notice of claim against the City of New York. The court's ruling, issued on July 8, 2026, affects Quilli's ability to pursue her claim for personal injuries sustained in an accident in Queens. This case highlights the importance of timely legal action when dealing with municipal entities.
The case arose after Quilli was allegedly struck by a vehicle while crossing 55th Avenue in Queens on October 30, 2019. Following the incident, she initiated legal proceedings against the City of New York on March 19, 2020, seeking permission to serve a late notice of claim as required under General Municipal Law § 50-e(5). This law mandates that individuals must notify a public corporation of a claim within 90 days of its occurrence.
Quilli's petition was initially denied by the Supreme Court in Queens County on April 1, 2021, and her subsequent motion to renew and reargue was also denied on August 17, 2021. The case then moved to the Appellate Division, where Quilli appealed both orders.
The Appellate Division upheld the lower court's decisions, affirming the denial of Quilli's petition. The judges involved in the ruling included Lara J. Genovesi, Lillian Wan, Lourdes M. Ventura, and Susan Quirk. The court emphasized that Quilli failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for her delay in serving the notice of claim. The ruling stated, "the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the failure to timely serve a notice of claim." This statement underlines the court's focus on the necessity of adhering to statutory deadlines.
In its opinion, the court outlined several key factors that must be considered when determining whether to grant a late notice of claim. These include whether the municipality had actual knowledge of the essential facts of the claim, whether the claimant had a reasonable excuse for the delay, and whether the delay would substantially prejudice the public corporation's defense. The court found that Quilli did not provide sufficient evidence to support her claims.
The court noted that Quilli's assertion that her injuries prevented her from complying with the 90-day deadline was not substantiated. The ruling pointed out that she did not attach any medical records or evidence to support her claims. The court stated, "the record demonstrates that her injuries did not prevent her from hiring prior counsel during that time," indicating that Quilli had the capacity to act within the required timeframe.
Furthermore, the court addressed Quilli's claims regarding her former attorney's failure to file the notice on time. The judges ruled that this did not constitute a reasonable excuse for the delay. The opinion stated, "the petitioner's claim of law office failure by her former attorney does not constitute a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim." This reinforces the court's position that individuals are responsible for ensuring their legal matters are handled promptly.
The court also highlighted that the City of New York did not have actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting Quilli's claim. The judges pointed out that a police accident report documenting the incident with the nonparty driver was insufficient to establish that the City was aware of any alleged negligence on its part. The ruling stated, "unsubstantiated and conclusory assertions that the municipality acquired timely actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim through the contents of reports and other documentation are insufficient." This emphasizes the need for clear and compelling evidence when seeking to establish a municipality's knowledge of a claim.
As a result of the court's ruling, Quilli's ability to pursue her claim against the City of New York is significantly impacted. The decision serves as a reminder of the strict timelines imposed by law for filing claims against public entities. Individuals must be diligent in adhering to these deadlines to ensure their rights are protected.
The ruling may also set a precedent for similar cases in the future. It reinforces the importance of timely action and the necessity of providing adequate justification for any delays in serving notices of claims. This case may influence how courts evaluate claims against municipalities, particularly regarding the burden of proof on claimants to demonstrate the reasons for late filings.
Looking ahead, it is unclear whether Quilli will seek to appeal this decision further. The court's ruling effectively closes the door on her current claim against the City of New York unless new evidence emerges that could justify a different outcome. There are no indications of related cases pending that could impact this ruling.