From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Lopez v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 20, 1986
123 A.D.2d 765 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Opinion

October 20, 1986

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rader, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

It is well established that an application to serve a late notice of claim must be made, with certain exceptions not applicable here, within one year and 90 days after the date of the occurrence (see, Silbernagel v City of New York, 57 N.Y.2d 691). Under this standard, the petitioner's application, which was brought in February 1985, is untimely and is not deemed to relate back to the prior motion (see, Thomas v City of New York, 102 A.D.2d 867). Moreover, based on the facts of this case, we conclude that the doctrine of equitable estoppel should not be applied to preclude the respondents from asserting the Statute of Limitations as an affirmative defense (see, Di Geloromo v Metropolitan Suburban Bus Auth., 116 A.D.2d 691). Brown, J.P., Weinstein, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Lopez v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 20, 1986
123 A.D.2d 765 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)
Case details for

Matter of Lopez v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of PIEDAD LOPEZ, Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK et al.…

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

Date published: Oct 20, 1986

Citations

123 A.D.2d 765 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Citing Cases

Binyard v. City of New York

The plaintiff's application for leave to serve a late notice of claim and to add the HHC as a party was not…

Zimmerman v. City of New York

It is well settled that under General Municipal Law § 50-e (5), an application for leave to file a late…