Summary
upholding dismissal, emphasizing that neither prior dealings among the parties nor actual knowledge of plaintiff's claims relieved plaintiff of duty to file a timely notice of claim under Section 23
Summary of this case from V.C. Vitanza Sons, Inc. v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth.Opinion
No. 2697.
May 4, 2010.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Bernard J. Fried, J.), entered March 24, 2009, which granted defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Feinstein Nisnewitz, P.C., Bayside (Neil H. Angel of counsel), for appellant.
Sonya M. Kaloyanides, New York (Rosanne R. Pisem of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Gonzalez, P.J., Tom, Renwick, DeGrasse and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.
Contrary to plaintiff's contention, neither prior dealings among the parties nor actual knowledge by defendant of plaintiffs claims and alleged damages relieved plaintiff of the obligation to serve a timely and sufficiently detailed notice of claim ( Promo-Pro Ltd. v Lehrer McGouern Bovis, 306 AD2d 221, lv denied 100 NY2d 628). Nor did defendant's alleged breach of the contract estop it from relying on plaintiffs failure to comply with the notice of claim provisions, since the breach, even if it occurred, did not prevent plaintiff from complying with those provisions ( A.H.A. Gen. Constr. v New York City Hous. Auth., 92 NY2d 20). In light of the foregoing, we do not reach the statute of limitations issue.