Opinion
December 27, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bellard, J.).
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the cross motion is denied, and the action is dismissed.
The court was without the discretion to grant the plaintiff's cross motion, as it was not made within one year and 90 days after the claim accrued (see, McKinney's Uncons Laws of N Y § 7401 [2]; General Municipal Law § 50-e; Cohen v Pearl Riv. Union Free School Dist., 51 N.Y.2d 256, 262). Moreover, we conclude that there is no evidence of any conduct on the part of the defendants that could be interpreted as lulling the plaintiff into a false sense of security. Hence, equitable estoppel does not lie (see, Ceely v New York City Health Hosps. Corp., 162 A.D.2d 492; see generally, Matter of Parkview Assocs. v City of New York, 71 N.Y.2d 274, cert denied 488 U.S. 801). Rosenblatt, J.P., Ritter, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.