Opinion
June 30, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jackson, J.).
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the cross motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.
The Supreme Court erred in applying General Municipal Law § 205-e (2) so as to find that this action was timely commenced. The revival of claims arising under that statute applies only to claims that accrued between January 1, 1987, and July 12, 1989 ( see, L 1989, ch 346; L 1994, ch 664; Huebner v. New York City Tr. Auth., 226 A.D.2d 678). Considering that the plaintiff's cause of action accrued on July 12, 1991, he was not exempt from the notice of claim requirement of General Municipal Law §§ 50-e Gen. Mun. and 50-i Gen. Mun.. Accordingly, his failure to comply with those provisions bars his suit ( see, Huebner v. New York City Tr. Auth., supra; Kinsella v. Astroland Kiddie Park, 232 A.D.2d 374). For this reason, we do not reach the defendant's remaining contentions.
Rosenblatt, J.P., Miller, Thompson and Friedmann, JJ., concur.