What did the court decide?

The court affirmed the denial of Pena’s request to file a late notice of claim against the City, finding he did not show the City knew the essential facts of his claim within the required time.

Who is affected by this decision?

Joseph Pena, the City of New York, and the NYPD are directly affected; Pena cannot proceed with his tort claim unless he obtains further relief.

Why was Pena's evidence insufficient?

The court found his allegations about a high-speed police chase were speculative, the accident report did not show police caused the crash, and the late incomplete notice would have been ineffective without prior court leave.

Can this decision be appealed further?

Pena may seek further review to a higher court, such as the Court of Appeals, but he would need to show a viable basis for appellate review and preserve any jurisdictional requirements.

Matter of Pena v. City of New York

Docket Index No. 157902/24|Appeal No. 6443|Case No. 2025-06734|

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

CivilAffirmed

Filed: Apr 23, 2026 · 1 week ago
Jurisdiction: New York
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Type: Opinion
Case type: Civil
Disposition: Affirmed
Citation: 2026 NY Slip Op 02459
Docket numbers: Index No157902/24Appeal No6443Case No2025-06734

Appeal from Supreme Court order denying petitioner leave to file a late notice of claim against the City and NYPD

Summary

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed Supreme Court's denial of Joseph Pena's amended petition for leave to file a late notice of claim against the City of New York and NYPD officers. The court held Pena failed to prove the City had actual knowledge of the essential facts of his negligence claim within 90 days of accrual or within a reasonable time thereafter. The submitted evidence — an accident report and an alleged incomplete notice served after the deadline — did not show the City knew the facts supporting his theory that an NYPD high-speed chase caused the collision, and Pena also failed to show the City was not prejudiced by the delay.

Issues Decided

Whether petitioner established the City had actual knowledge of the essential facts of his claim within 90 days of accrual or within a reasonable time thereafter under General Municipal Law § 50-e(5).
Whether the police accident report and an alleged incomplete notice of claim sufficed to show the City knew facts supporting petitioner’s theory that an NYPD high-speed chase caused the collision.
Whether the petitioner demonstrated the City was not prejudiced by the delay in filing the notice of claim, shifting the burden to the City to show prejudice.

Court's Reasoning

Under General Municipal Law § 50-e(5), a claimant must show the municipality actually knew the essential facts within 90 days or a reasonable time thereafter. The court found Pena's allegations about a high-speed NYPD chase were speculative and not factual evidence establishing the City's knowledge. The police accident report did not indicate the NYPD vehicle caused the crash or was engaged in a negligent high-speed chase, and the purported late incomplete notice of claim was not properly before the court and would have been a nullity without leave. Because Pena failed to meet his initial burden, the City never had to show specific prejudice.

Authorities Cited

General Municipal Law § 50-e(5)
Cassidy v New York City Tr. Auth.238 AD3d 484 (1st Dept 2025)
Matter of Jaime v City of New York41 NY3d 531 (2024)
Matter of Kayam v City of New York237 AD3d 474 (1st Dept 2025)

Parties

Petitioner: Joseph Pena
Respondent: City of New York
Respondent: New York Police Department (NYPD)
Respondent: Matthew D. Jackson
Attorney: Harrison Edwards (Zimmerman, Law, PC.)
Attorney: Janet L. Zaleon (Muriel Goode-Trufant, Corporation Counsel)
Judge: Arthur F. Engoron
Judge: Scarpulla, J.P.
Judge: Friedman
Judge: Gesmer
Judge: Shulman
Judge: Chan

Key Dates

Decision date: 2026-04-23
Alleged notice of claim served: 2024-04-23
Notice of claim filed: 2024-07-01
Supreme Court order entered: 2024-12-09

What You Should Do Next

1
Consult appellate counsel
If Pena wishes to continue, he should consult appellate counsel promptly to evaluate prospects for further appeal and to determine jurisdictional deadlines for seeking leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals.
2
Gather additional evidence
If pursuing further relief, assemble any new or previously unavailable admissible evidence showing the City had actual knowledge of the essential facts within the statutory period.
3
Consider withdrawal or settlement options
Discuss with counsel whether alternative remedies, settlement with the City, or other litigation strategies are feasible given the procedural bar to the claim.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide?: The court affirmed the denial of Pena’s request to file a late notice of claim against the City, finding he did not show the City knew the essential facts of his claim within the required time.
Who is affected by this decision?: Joseph Pena, the City of New York, and the NYPD are directly affected; Pena cannot proceed with his tort claim unless he obtains further relief.
Why was Pena's evidence insufficient?: The court found his allegations about a high-speed police chase were speculative, the accident report did not show police caused the crash, and the late incomplete notice would have been ineffective without prior court leave.
Can this decision be appealed further?: Pena may seek further review to a higher court, such as the Court of Appeals, but he would need to show a viable basis for appellate review and preserve any jurisdictional requirements.

The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.

Full Filing Text

Matter of Pena v City of New York - 2026 NY Slip Op 02459

Matter of Pena v City of New York

2026 NY Slip Op 02459

April 23, 2026

Appellate Division, First Department

In the Matter of Joseph Pena etc., Petitioner-Appellant,

The City of New York et al., Respondents-Respondents.

Decided and Entered: April 23, 2026

Index No. 157902/24|Appeal No. 6443|Case No. 2025-06734|

Before: Scarpulla, J.P., Friedman, Gesmer, Shulman, Chan, JJ.

Zimmerman, Law, PC., Huntington Station (Harrison Edwards of counsel), for appellant.

Muriel Goode-Trufant, Corporation Counsel, New York (Janet L. Zaleon of counsel), for respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Arthur F. Engoron, J.), entered on or about December 9, 2024, which denied petitioner's amended petition for leave to file a late notice of claim against respondents the New York Police Department (NYPD), Matthew D. Jackson, and the City of New York (collectively, the City) and to deem the notice of claim, filed July 1, 2024, timely filed, nunc pro tunc, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner failed to satisfy his burden of establishing that the City acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts of his claim within 90 days of its accrual or within a reasonable time thereafter (General Municipal Law § 50-e [5];
see Cassidy v New York City Tr. Auth.
, 238 AD3d 484, 485 [1st Dept 2025];
Zapata v New York City Hous. Auth.
, 115 AD3d 606, 606 [1st Dept 2014]). Petitioner's allegation that an NYPD police officer caused the accident by engaging in a high-speed chase, causing a collision between the vehicle that was being pursued and the bus petitioner was operating, is insufficient to satisfy that burden because it does not constitute facts or evidence (
see Matter of Jaime v City of New York
, 41 NY3d 531, 543 [2024]). Nor does petitioner's assumption that the City investigated the accident establish that it actually acquired the requisite knowledge of the essential facts (
see Rivera v New York City Dept. of Transp.
, 235 AD3d 510, 511 [1st Dept 2025]).

The police accident report annexed to petitioner's leave application did not establish that the City had actual knowledge of the facts supporting his theory of liability, because it did not indicate that the NYPD vehicle was negligently engaged in a high-speed chase with the nonparty's vehicle or that the NYPD vehicle caused the accident (
see Matter of Kayam v City of New York
, 237 AD3d 474, 475 [1st Dept 2025];
Lobos v City of New York
, 219 AD3d 720, 722 [2d Dept 2023]).

The incomplete notice of claim which petitioner allegedly served on the City on April 23, 2024, about six months after the expiration of the 90-day statutory deadline to file a timely notice of claim, is not in the record. In any event, that late notice could not have provided the City with actual notice because "without leave of court, [it] was a nullity" (
Cassidy
, 238 AD3d at 485 [1st Dept 2025]).

Finally, petitioner failed to carry his burden of demonstrating that the City was not prejudiced by the delay in filing the notice of claim; accordingly, the burden never shifted to the City to make a particularized showing of prejudice to its ability to defend on the merits (
see Matter of Cani v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.
, 242 AD3d 408, 409 [1st Dept 2025]). Further, because petitioner failed to satisfy its burden in the first instance, it is irrelevant that the City did not oppose the leave application below.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: April 23, 2026