Opinion
2013-11-14
Parvin A. ISLAM, Petitioner–Appellant, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent–Respondent.
Law Office of Stuart N. Babich, P.C., Jackson Heights (David Stein of counsel), for appellant. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Fay NG of counsel), for respondent.
Law Office of Stuart N. Babich, P.C., Jackson Heights (David Stein of counsel), for appellant. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Fay NG of counsel), for respondent.
Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Joan B. *782Lobis, J.), entered July 5, 2012, which denied petitioner's motion to renew his motion for leave to file a late notice of claim, granted respondent's cross motion to dismiss the proceeding, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The motion court properly held that it lacked the discretion to deem the late notice of claim timely filed because the statute of limitations for petitioner's negligence claim had already expired (General Municipal Law § 50–e[5]; Pierson v. City of New York, 56 N.Y.2d 950, 954–955, 453 N.Y.S.2d 615, 439 N.E.2d 331 [1982];Harper v. City of New York, 92 A.D.3d 505, 937 N.Y.S.2d 857 [1st Dept.2012] ).
Petitioner's arguments that the original notice of claim was timely and properly served are unpreserved since they were not raised before the motion court ( see Shaw v. Silver, 95 A.D.3d 416, 417, 943 N.Y.S.2d 89 [1st Dept.2012] ).
We have considered petitioner's remaining contentions and find them either unpreserved or unavailing.