From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Benejan v. New York City Transit Auth

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 3, 2003
306 A.D.2d 1 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

933N

June 3, 2003.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered March 27, 2002, which granted the motion of petitioner, self-designated as plaintiff, for leave to serve and file a late Notice of Claim nunc pro tunc, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied.

Jay L.T. Breakstone, for plaintiff-respondent.

Anita Isola, for defendants-appellants.

Before: Buckley, P.J., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Wallach, Friedman, JJ.

Deceased June 1, 2003.


The notice of claim which petitioner sought leave to serve and file arises from a September 2000 automobile accident with a bus which allegedly resulted in serious injuries within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d). Petitioner failed to file a statutorily mandated notice of claim within 90 days of the accident; instead she filed her motion for leave with the clerk of court exactly one year and 90 days from the accrual date of her cause of action (see General Municipal Law § 50-e and Public Authorities Law § 1212). Since there was no pending action, the application for relief constituted a special proceeding which is commenced by filing and was timely (CPLR § 304; Rybka v. NYCHHC, 263 A.D.2d 403, 404). Although the motion was timely, petitioner failed to demonstrate an excuse for leave. She claimed her failure to file a timely notice of claim resulted from physical incapacitation. However, by her own admission, that only lasted until several months after the accident, specifically December 1, 2000. There is no claim, much less medical verification, that there was anything which prevented her from timely filing a notice of claim within the original 90 days and the motion should have been denied (Burgos v. City of New York, 294 A.D.2d 177; Potts v. NYHHC, 270 A.D.2d 129; Gomez v. City of New York, 250 A.D.2d 443, lv denied 92 N.Y.2d 809).

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


Summaries of

Benejan v. New York City Transit Auth

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 3, 2003
306 A.D.2d 1 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Benejan v. New York City Transit Auth

Case Details

Full title:TAMARA BENEJAN, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. THE NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Jun 3, 2003

Citations

306 A.D.2d 1 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
759 N.Y.S.2d 655

Citing Cases

Shister v. City of New York

ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, that branch of the…

Kirchheimer v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp.

Plaintiff does not submit any medical evidence on this motion. See Benejan v NY City Transit Auth., 306 AD2d…