Summary
holding that plaintiff's “failure to seek a court order excusing ... lateness [of her notice of claim] within one year and 90 days after the date of the accident requires dismissal of the action” (citing McGarty v. City of N.Y., 44 A.D.3d 447, 448, 843 N.Y.S.2d 287 (1st Dep't 2007)); N.Y. Gen. Mun. Law §§ 50–e, 50–i(c)
Summary of this case from Dodson v. Bd. of Educ. of the Valley Stream Union Free Sch. Dist. & the Valley Stream Cent. High Sch. Dist.Opinion
2012-06-21
Suzanne NIEVES, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, Defendant–Respondent.
Arnold E. DiJoseph, New York, for appellant. Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, New York (Patrick J. Lawless of counsel), for respondent.
Arnold E. DiJoseph, New York, for appellant. Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, New York (Patrick J. Lawless of counsel), for respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Judith J. Gische, J.), entered June 10, 2011, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for failure to serve a timely notice of claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff's service of an admittedly late notice of claim “was a nullity” *860( McGarty v. City of New York, 44 A.D.3d 447, 448, 843 N.Y.S.2d 287 [2007] ), and her failure to seek a court order excusing such lateness within one year and 90 days after the date of the accident requires dismissal of the action ( id.; seeGeneral Municipal Law §§ 50–e[5], 50–i[1][c] ). We reject plaintiff's argument that defendant verbally agreed to waive any defense based upon her untimely notice of claim, and that such agreement was memorialized in the parties' stipulation.
We have considered plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.