PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff, Mahesh Swaminathan, appeals from a June 20, 2014 order denying his motion to file a late notice of tort claim pursuant to
On December 17, 2013, plaintiff injured himself when he slipped and fell at a public park and ride facility in South Brunswick. Plaintiff was obligated to file a notice of tort claim within ninety days, or by March 17, 2014.
Plaintiff's counsel filed a motion for leave to file a late notice of tort claim. Both plaintiff and plaintiff's counsel filed certifications. Plaintiff certified that he missed the filing deadline solely because he was unaware "the parking lot at the bus station was owned by a public entity." In his certification, plaintiff stated that the accident caused "injuries to his shoulder which required surgery." Plaintiff and his counsel, however, did not maintain that plaintiff's medical condition prevented plaintiff from pursuing his legal rights. Rather, plaintiff's counsel contended solely that the ninety-day deadline should be extended because plaintiff was unable to "ascertain with certainty" whether a public entity was involved in the incident.
After receiving opposition to the motion, plaintiff and his counsel raised for the first time, without producing medical records or physician reports, that plaintiff missed the deadline because of plaintiff's injuries. Plaintiff submitted a new certification adding that he "sustained a severe fracture to [his] humerus and underwent a complicated and extremely serious surgical procedure on December 30, 2013." He elaborated further that he was "essentially" homebound until the end of January 2014. Plaintiff explained that he retained counsel at the end of March 2014, when he was able to leave home "freely and independently."
In June 2014, the judge conducted oral argument, denied the motion, and rendered an oral opinion. In rejecting plaintiff's argument that he was unaware whether a public entity had owned the property, the judge concluded that plaintiff failed to use reasonable efforts to timely identify the owner of the property. To show that such an investigation was uncomplicated, she indicated it took counsel two days to determine that fact. The judge rejected plaintiff's belated medical argument concluding that plaintiff's injury was insufficient to constitute "extraordinary circumstances" under the statute.
On appeal, plaintiff argues that the judge abused her discretion by denying his motion. He contends primarily that defendants were not prejudiced and that his medical condition constitutes "extraordinary circumstances" warranting an extension of the ninety-day deadline. Plaintiff's counsel also maintains that plaintiff was under a mistaken but reasonable impression that a public entity was not involved in the accident.
The decision to grant permission to file a notice of late claim is left "`to the sound discretion of the trial court, and [its decision] will be sustained on appeal in the absence of a showing of an abuse thereof.'"
A claimant must file a notice of claim within ninety days of the accrual of the cause of action.
In general, medical conditions may satisfy the extraordinary circumstances test if they are "severe or debilitating."
We have previously addressed whether "severe or debilitating" medical conditions have met the extraordinary circumstances standard.
Plaintiff failed to show that his medical condition satisfies the extraordinary circumstances test. Plaintiff produced no medical records to the judge or us about his injury. As a result, we are unable to determine the exact injury that he sustained; what surgical procedure was performed; whether he required hospitalization, and if so, for how long; whether he experienced post-operative medical complications; whether a doctor prescribed medication that would have affected his ability to concentrate; or whether a doctor limited plaintiff's "mobility" after the accident, and if so, for how long. In other words, plaintiff offered no medical information to substantiate his contention that he was unable to "secure the representation of a lawyer."
We conclude that plaintiff's remaining argument, that he was unable to identify whether a public entity was involved in the accident, is without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion,
As the judge correctly pointed out, a reasonable investigation would have readily shown that a public entity was involved in the accident. Plaintiff offers no evidence that he, or his wife, made any attempt to timely learn who owned the property. It was not until after the ninety days passed that plaintiff contacted counsel, who readily identified that fact two days later.
Affirmed.