late notice claim in New Jersey

2021The harshness of N.J.S.A. 59:8-8's ninety-day requirement, however, is in part alleviated by N.J.S.A. 59:8-9, Rogers, 208 N.J. at 420-21, which "permits a court to allow a plaintiff to file a late notice of claim under 'extraordinary circumstances,' if the motion is made within one year of the accrual of the claim," id. at 427 (quoting Lowe v. Zarghami, 158 N.J. 606, 613 (1991)); see also O'Donnell, 236 N.J. at 345-46 .

2021A-4008-19 6 Prior to the enactment of N.J.S.A. 59:8-9, for a court to grant leave to file a late notice of claim, a claimant needed only to show "sufficient reasons." Lowe v. Zarghami, 158 N.J. 606, 625 (1999).

2025Dismissal of claims is appropriate where "plaintiffs declined to invoke the statutory procedure by which a court determines whether the late filing of a notice of claim can be excused." McDade, 208 N.J. at 469 . "[T]he filing of 'a late notice of claim with an entity without leave of court is a nullity and does not constitute substantial compliance with the terms of [N.J.S.A. 59:8–9].'" Rogers v. Cape May Cnty.

2021Application to the court for permission to file a late notice of claim shall be made upon motion supported by affidavits based upon personal knowledge of the affiant showing sufficient reasons constituting extraordinary circumstances for his failure to file notice of claim within the period of time prescribed by section 59:8-8 of this act or to file a motion seeking leave to file a late notice of claim within a reasonable time thereafter[.] A-5665-18 6 [N.J.S.A. 59:8-9 (emphasis added).] Thus, if a claimant seeks to present a late notice of claim pursuant to the TCA, "the grant or denial of re

2025Courts faced with applications for leave to file a late notice of claim, therefore, must proceed with their evaluation mindful of the Legislature's direction that the proofs demonstrate circumstances that are not merely sufficient, but that they instead be extraordinary. [D.D., 213 N.J. at 148-49 .] The party seeking leave to file a late notice of claim bears the burden of establishing extraordinary circumstances justifying the late filing.

2025In support of her motion to file a late notice of claim, the plaintiff explained she was "in absolute shock" and "began exhibiting medical symptoms as a result of increased stress and anxiety." Id. at 137 .

2018Application to the court for permission to file a late notice of claim shall be made upon motion supported by affidavits based upon personal knowledge of the affiant showing sufficient reasons constituting extraordinary circumstances for his failure to file notice of claim within the period of time prescribed by section 59:8-8 of this act or to file a motion seeking leave to file a late notice of claim within a reasonable time thereafter; provided that in no event may any suit against a public entity or a public employee arising under this act be filed later than two years from the time of the

2011In Beauchamp v. Amedio, 164 N.J. 111 , 751 A.2d 1047 (2000), this Court addressed the interplay between the discovery rule and the standard applied when a claimant has filed a motion for leave to file a late notice of claim under N.J.S.A. 59:8-9: The first task is always to determine when the claim accrued.

2021However, "it is the public entity that has the burden of coming forward and of persuasion on the question of [substantial] prejudice." Blank v. City of Elizabeth, 318 N.J.

2018Application to the court for permission to file a late notice of claim shall be made upon motion supported by affidavits based upon personal knowledge of the affiant showing sufficient reasons constituting extraordinary circumstances for his failure to file notice of claim within the period of time prescribed by section 59:8-8 of this act or to file a motion seeking leave to file a late notice of claim within a reasonable time thereafter; provided that in no event may any suit against a public entity or a public employee arising under this act be filed later than two years from the time of the

2019"Courts faced with applications for leave to file a late notice of claim, therefore, must proceed with their evaluation mindful of the Legislature's direction that the proofs demonstrate circumstances that are not merely sufficient, but that they instead be extraordinary." Id. at 149 . "[I]n engaging in the analysis of A-0779-17T2 9 extraordinary circumstances, the court's focus must be directed to the evidence that relates to plaintiff's circumstances as they were during the ninety-day time period[.]" Id. at 151 .

2019"Courts faced with applications for leave to file a late notice of claim, therefore, must proceed with their evaluation mindful of the Legislature's direction that the proofs demonstrate circumstances that are not merely sufficient, but that they instead be extraordinary." Id. at 149 . "[I]n engaging in the analysis of A-0779-17T2 9 extraordinary circumstances, the court's focus must be directed to the evidence that relates to plaintiff's circumstances as they were during the ninety-day time period[.]" Id. at 151 .

2025Thus, N.J.S.A. 59:8-9 provides a claimant may "file an application for leave to serve a late notice of claim on a showing of extraordinary circumstances, so long as the application is filed within one year of the accrual of the claim and the public entity has not been substantially prejudiced by the delay." O'Donnell, 236 N.J. at 346 .

2025Thus, "N.J.S.A. 59:8-9 permits a claimant to file an application for leave to serve a late notice of claim on a showing of extraordinary circumstances, so long as the application is filed within one year of the accrual of the claim and the public entity has not been substantially prejudiced . . . ." O'Donnell, 236 N.J. at 346 .

2019Findings about "the lack of 'substantial prejudice' and the presence of 'extraordinary circumstances' . . . must be expressly made in order to comply with the legislative mandate and to justify the entry of an order permitting the filing of a late notice of claim under N.J.S.A. 59:8-9." Allen v. Krause, 306 N.J.

2011In order for that motion to succeed, Rogers had to demonstrate that defendants would not be “substantially prejudiced” and that “extraordinary circumstances” caused his failure to file a timely notice: Permission to file a late notice of claim requires a showing (1) that the public entity or public employee will not be “substantially prejudiced” by the granting of such permission; and (2) that there are sufficient reasons, based upon the personal knowledge of the affiant, constituting “extraordinary circumstances” for the failure to file a notice of claim within the ninety-day window prescribe

1999In Feinberg, supra, 137 N.J. at 135 , 644 A.2d 593 , we *642 allowed the filing of a late notice of claim two years beyond the accrual of the plaintiffs claim.

1999In Feinberg, supra, 137 N.J. at 135 , 644 A.2d 593 , we *642 allowed the filing of a late notice of claim two years beyond the accrual of the plaintiffs claim.

2021Def., 208 N.J. 414, 420 (2011), N.J.S.A. 59:8-9 establishes a mechanism that a claimant could obtain judicial approval to file a late notice of claim: A claimant who fails to file notice of [her] claim within [ninety] days as provided in section 59:8-8 of this act, A-0694-20 4 may, in the discretion of a judge of the Superior Court, be permitted to file such notice at any time within one year after the accrual of [her] claim provided that the public entity or the public employee has not been substantially prejudiced thereby.

2019Def. , 208 N.J. 414 , 420, 31 A.3d 934 (2011), the Legislature created a mechanism through which a claimant could obtain judicial approval to file a late notice of claim under certain circumstances: A claimant who fails to file notice of his claim within 90 days as provided in section 59:8-8 of this act, may, in the discretion of a judge of the Superior Court, be permitted to file such notice at any time within one year after the accrual of his claim provided that the public entity or the public employee has not been substantially prejudiced thereby.

2008This specially required form was used pursuant to N.J.S.A. 59:8-6, which allows a public entity to adopt its own "forms specifying information to be contained in claims filed against it or its employee." Florence *120 Township did not hear from plaintiffs again "until December 1, 1995 when plaintiffs moved in the Law Division for an order declaring that their previously filed and served notice of tort claim was sufficient at law or in the alternative permitting [them] to file a late notice of claim in accordance with N.J.S.A. 59:8-9." Id. at 374 , 695 A. 2d 377 (quotations omitted) (alteration

2008This specially required form was used pursuant to N.J.S.A. 59:8-6, which allows a public entity to adopt its own "forms specifying information to be contained in claims filed against it or its employee." Florence *120 Township did not hear from plaintiffs again "until December 1, 1995 when plaintiffs moved in the Law Division for an order declaring that their previously filed and served notice of tort claim was sufficient at law or in the alternative permitting [them] to file a late notice of claim in accordance with N.J.S.A. 59:8-9." Id. at 374 , 695 A. 2d 377 (quotations omitted) (alteration

2021"The [trial judge] has discretion to grant or deny permission to file a late notice of claim within the one-year period, and the decision 'will be sustained on appeal in the absence of a showing of an abuse thereof.'" O'Neill v. City of Newark, 304 N.J.

1999N.J.S.A. 59:8-9 grants the court discretion to permit a claimant, who failed to file a timely notice, leave to do so "at any time within one year after the accrual of his claim provided that the public entity or the public employee has not been substantially prejudiced thereby." N.J.S.A. 59:8-9; Lamb v. Global Landfill Reclaiming, 111 N.J. 134, 146 , 543 A. 2d 443 (1988) (trial court's decision on motion for leave to file a late notice of claim "will be sustained on appeal in the absence of a showing of an abuse [of discretion]"); O' Neill, supra, 304 N.J.Super. at 550 , 701 A. 2d 717 .

2019Dist., 387 N.J.

2015Dist., 387 N.J.

1986N.J.S.A. 59:8-9; Lutz v. Semcer, 126 N.J.

1976Lutz v. Semcer, 126 N.J.

2025See Owens v. Feigin, 194 N.J. 607, 609 (2008) (TCA's notice-of-claim provisions do not apply to claims asserted under the New Jersey Civil Rights Act, N.J.S.A. 10:6-1 to -2); Schneider v. Simonini, 163 N.J. 336, 372 (2000) (TCA's notice-of-claim provisions are inapplicable to civil rights actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ).

2021See Owens v. Feigin, 194 N.J. 607, 609 (2008) (TCA's notice-of-claim provisions do not apply to claims asserted under the New Jersey Civil Rights Act, N.J.S.A. 10:6-1 to - 2); Schneider v. Simonini, 163 N.J. 336, 372 (2000) (TCA's notice-of-claim provisions are inapplicable to civil rights actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ) .

2025See Owens v. Feigin, 194 N.J. 607, 609 (2008) (TCA's notice-of-claim provisions do not apply to claims asserted under the New Jersey Civil Rights Act, N.J.S.A. 10:6-1 to -2); Schneider v. Simonini, 163 N.J. 336, 372 (2000) (TCA's notice-of-claim provisions are inapplicable to civil rights actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ).

2021See Owens v. Feigin, 194 N.J. 607, 609 (2008) (TCA's notice-of-claim provisions do not apply to claims asserted under the New Jersey Civil Rights Act, N.J.S.A. 10:6-1 to - 2); Schneider v. Simonini, 163 N.J. 336, 372 (2000) (TCA's notice-of-claim provisions are inapplicable to civil rights actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ) .

2019A-1945-18T4 7 [(Fuller v. Rutgers, State University, 154 N.J.

1985A trial judge clearly is powerless to grant relief under this statute "where application to the court by motion for permission to file a late notice of claim has not been made within the year." Fuller v. Rutgers, 154 N.J.

2019Veteran's Mem'l Home , 164 N.J. 74 , 77, 751 A.2d 559 (2000) (internal citations omitted); see Lowe , 158 N.J. at 631 , 731 A.2d 14 ("Because of the specific facts of this case, ... this plaintiff presented extraordinary circumstances, under which late notice of a claim is permitted."); Eagan v. Boyarsky , 158 N.J. 632 , 640, 731 A.2d 28 (1999) ("[W]e now consider whether under the unique facts of this case, plaintiff may file a late notice of claim.").

2019Veteran's Mem'l Home , 164 N.J. 74 , 77, 751 A.2d 559 (2000) (internal citations omitted); see Lowe , 158 N.J. at 631 , 731 A.2d 14 ("Because of the specific facts of this case, ... this plaintiff presented extraordinary circumstances, under which late notice of a claim is permitted."); Eagan v. Boyarsky , 158 N.J. 632 , 640, 731 A.2d 28 (1999) ("[W]e now consider whether under the unique facts of this case, plaintiff may file a late notice of claim.").

2011In that respect, the filing of “a late notice of claim with an entity without leave of court is a nullity and does not constitute substantial compliance with the terms of [N.J.S.A 59:8-9].” Margolis & Novack, Claims Against Public Entities, comment on N.J.S.A. 59:8-9 (2011) (citing Priore v. State, 190 N.J.Super. 127, 130 , 462 A.2d 191 (App.Div.1983), overruled on other grounds, Moon v. Warren Haven Nursing Home, 182 N.J. 507 , 867 A.2d 1174 (2005)).

2011In that respect, the filing of “a late notice of claim with an entity without leave of court is a nullity and does not constitute substantial compliance with the terms of [N.J.S.A 59:8-9].” Margolis & Novack, Claims Against Public Entities, comment on N.J.S.A. 59:8-9 (2011) (citing Priore v. State, 190 N.J.Super. 127, 130 , 462 A.2d 191 (App.Div.1983), overruled on other grounds, Moon v. Warren Haven Nursing Home, 182 N.J. 507 , 867 A.2d 1174 (2005)).

2008Id. at 104-05 , 347 A. 2d 822 .

2008Id. at 104-05 , 347 A. 2d 822 .

2025Friel Co. v. New Jersey Turnpike Auth., 73 N.J. 107, 122 (1977)).] "Although deference will ordinarily be given to the factual findings that undergird the trial court's decision, the court's conclusions will be overturned if 7 Although argued below, plaintiff does not contend in her merits brief that Mr. Gold's unfortunate demise constitutes extraordinary circumstances warranting a leave to file a late notice of claim.

1980Turnpike Auth., supra, requires that the motion for leave to file a late notice claim be granted.

2021Badr also failed to move for leave to file a late notice of claim within one year of the accrual of plaintiff's claim in accordance with N.J.S.A. 59:8-9, and, as a result, the motion court was "without authority" to grant Badr's motion to file a late notice.3 Pilonero, 236 N.J.

2011A 59:8-9 (“[Claimant ..., may, in the discretion of a judge of the Superior Court, be permitted to file such notice at any time within one year after the accrual____” (emphasis added)); Lowe v. Zarghami, 158 N.J. 606, 613 , 731 A.2d 14 (1999) (noting that N.J.S.A 59:8-9 “permits a court to allow a plaintiff to file a late notice of a claim under 'extraordinary circumstances,’ if the motion is made within one year of the accrual of the claim” (emphasis added)); see also Pilonero v. Twp. of Old Bridge, 236 N.J.Super. 529, 532 , 566 A.2d 546 (App.Div.1989) (“After the one-year limitation has pass

2021Super. at 532 (quoting Speer, 168 N.J.

1984Speer v. Armstrong, 168 N.J.

2021"Findings about 'the lack of "substantial prejudice" and the presence of "extraordinary circumstances" . . . must be expressly made [by a motion court] in order to comply with the legislative mandate and to justify the entry of an order permitting the filing of a late notice of claim under N.J.S.A. 59:8-9.'" Leidy, 398 N.J.

2021See Leidy, 398 N.J.