## Facts

- Ulysses Newson and other claimants sought to pursue a claim against the City of New York based on allegedly negligent medical treatment Newson received at a City-owned hospital.
- Under General Municipal Law (GML) § 50-e(1)(a), a notice of claim generally must be served within 90 days after the claim arises.
- The claimants did not serve a timely notice of claim and moved in Supreme Court for leave to serve a late notice of claim under GML § 50-e(5).
- The claimants requested an extension of about four and one-half months to serve the notice.
- The claimants argued the City had knowledge of the essential facts because the alleged malpractice occurred in a municipal hospital, was performed by those acting for the City, and was recorded in the hospital’s medical records.
- Supreme Court denied the application, stating that late notice relief should be granted only in “exceptional circumstances,” which it found lacking.
- The claimants appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether, after the 1976 amendment to GML § 50-e, a court may deny late-notice relief on the ground that “exceptional circumstances” are required.
2. Whether the City’s possession of municipal hospital records and the involvement of municipal medical personnel can support a finding that the City had actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim for purposes of GML § 50-e(5).
3. Whether allowing a late notice on these facts would substantially prejudice the City’s ability to investigate or defend the claim.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division reversed Supreme Court’s order.
- The Appellate Division granted the claimants leave to serve a late notice of claim (or directed that such leave be granted).
- The court rejected Supreme Court’s “exceptional circumstances” requirement as inconsistent with the discretionary, factor-based standard set out in GML § 50-e(5) as amended.
- The court concluded that, because the alleged negligent treatment occurred at a City-owned hospital and was reflected in hospital records, the City could be found to have had knowledge of the essential facts of the claim within the meaning of the statute.
- The court found that the circumstances, including the relatively short delay and the City’s access to the medical records, supported a conclusion that the City would not suffer substantial prejudice from late service.

## Legal Principles

- GML § 50-e(5) (as revised in 1976) authorizes courts to permit late service of a notice of claim based on statutory factors; it does not impose a separate “exceptional circumstances” threshold.
- In the municipal-hospital setting, medical records created and maintained by the municipality, together with treatment provided by municipal personnel, may support a finding that the municipality had actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim.
- When deciding whether to permit late notice, courts consider whether the municipality had actual knowledge within the statutory period or a reasonable time thereafter and whether the delay would substantially prejudice the municipality’s ability to investigate and defend.
- A short delay, coupled with the municipality’s contemporaneous access to records and information about the event, weighs against a finding of substantial prejudice.

## Conclusion

*Matter of Newson v. City of New York* holds that Supreme Court should not deny leave to serve a late notice of claim based on an extra requirement of “exceptional circumstances,” and that alleged malpractice at a City hospital—documented in the hospital’s records and involving City medical personnel—can supply the City with the knowledge needed under GML § 50-e(5) and support granting late-notice relief where substantial prejudice is not shown.


Matter of Newson v. City of New York, 87 A.D.2d 630, 448 N.Y.S.2d 224 (1982)