Opinion
04-16-2024
Emily CORTES, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant, New York City Housing Authority, Defendant–Respondent.
Provenzano Law Firm PLLC, New York (Vincent F. Provenzano of counsel), for appellant. Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, New York (Patrick J. Lawless of counsel), for respondent.
Provenzano Law Firm PLLC, New York (Vincent F. Provenzano of counsel), for appellant.
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, New York (Patrick J. Lawless of counsel), for respondent.
Moulton, J.P., Gesmer, González, Rodriguez, Michael, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (J. Machelle Sweeting, J.), entered February 28, 2023, which granted defendant New York Housing Authority’s motion to dismiss the complaint as against it, and denied plaintiff’s cross-motion for an order deeming the summons and complaint to be timely served, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
[1] Plaintiff’s accident occurred on June 29, 2020, and the applicable statute of limitations to commence her action against defendant was one year and 90 days (see Martinez v. City of New York, 48 A.D.3d 257, 257, 852 N.Y.S.2d 70 [1st Dept. 2008]). At the time of the accident, Executive Order 202.8 was in effect as a result of the COVID–19 pandemic, which tolled the time to commence the action until November 4, 2020. Plaintiff’s time to commence the action was therefore extended to February 1, 2022. Her commencement of the action on April 20, 2022, was therefore untimely (see Matter of New York City Tr. Auth. v. American Tr. Ins. Co., 211 A.D.3d 643, 643, 181 N.Y.S.3d 218 [1st Dept. 2022]; Brash v. Richards, 195 A.D.3d 582, 583–584, 149 N.Y.S.3d 560 [2d Dept. 2021]).
[2] Given that plaintiff commenced the action after the statute of limitations lapsed (CPLR 201; Matter of Thorton v. New York City Hous. Auth., 100 A.D.3d 556, 557, 954 N.Y.S.2d 524 [1st Dept. 2012]), this Court cannot deem the complaint as timely served. In any event, even if she had commenced the action within the applicable limitations period, plaintiff has failed to demonstrate good cause for failing to serve the summons and complaint within 120 days of filing (see CPLR 306–b).