Summary
In Singh, according to the record on appeal, the plaintiff served a Notice of Claim addressed to defendants MTA, MTA Bus, and MTA Bus Regional Operations.
Summary of this case from Cancel v. Metro. Transp. Auth.Opinion
09-19-2017
E Yasmina SINGH, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. The METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, et al., Defendants–Respondents.
Halperin & Halperin, P.C., New York (Jeffrey Weiskopf of counsel), for appellant. Armienti DeBellis Guglielmo & Rhoden, LLP, New York (Vanessa M. Corchia of counsel), for respondents.
Halperin & Halperin, P.C., New York (Jeffrey Weiskopf of counsel), for appellant.
Armienti DeBellis Guglielmo & Rhoden, LLP, New York (Vanessa M. Corchia of counsel), for respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Ben R. Barbato, J.), entered January 19, 2017, which, upon reargument of defendants' motion, dismissed the complaint in its entirety, and order, same court, Justice and date of entry, which denied plaintiff's motion to renew, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of denying the portion of defendants' motion seeking dismissal of the complaint against defendant MTA Bus Company and Shentel Melinda Wright, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court (Barry Salman, J.), entered May 9, 2016, which granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as superseded by the appeal from the reargument order.
Under the facts of this case, MTA Bus is equitably estopped from claiming that it is not the proper party defendant (see generally Bender v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 38 N.Y.2d 662, 667–668, 382 N.Y.S.2d 18, 345 N.E.2d 561 [1976] [courts may use doctrine of equitable estoppel to notice of claim situations to ensure that statutes like section 50–e of the General Municipal Law do not become a trap]; Konner v. New York City Tr. Auth., 143 A.D.3d 774, 39 N.Y.S.3d 475 [2d Dept.2016] ).
ACOSTA, P.J., RENWICK, RICHTER, WEBBER, JJ., concur.