Viruet v. City of New York

9 Citing cases

  1. Bradshaw v. City of N.Y.

    17 Civ. 1199 (AJP) (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 7, 2017)   Cited 17 times
    Granting defendant summary judgment on equal protection claim based on vague allegations and speculation that officer's actions were racially motivated

    "The person designated by law to receive the notice of claim, on behalf of the City of New York, is the Corporation Counsel, or his designee, or the New York City Comptroller." Viruet v. City of N.Y., 181 Misc. 2d 958, 961, 695 N.Y.S.2d 663, 666 (Sup. Ct. Bronx Cty. 1999) (fns. & citations omitted), aff'd, 277 A.D.2d 33, 715 N.Y.S.2d 406 (2000), certified question answered & aff'd, 97 N.Y.2d 171, 738 N.Y.S.2d 2 (2001); see also C.P.L.R. § 311(a)(2); N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 7-201. Bradshaw presents no evidence that he served the notice personally, electronically, or via registered or certified mail (or in any other way) on Corporation Counsel or the City Comptroller.

  2. Scantlebury v. N.Y.C. Health Hosp. Corp.

    4 N.Y.3d 606 (N.Y. 2005)   Cited 59 times

    The parties do not dispute that the "notice of intention to commence [an] action" required by section 7401 (2) is a condition precedent to a suit against HHC, the functional equivalent of a notice of claim ( cf. Court of Claims Act § 10 [service on Attorney General of a "notice of intention to file a claim" extends claimant's time to file and serve a claim]). In fact, we have treated section 7401 (2) as a notice of claim provision, and have used the terms "notice of intention" and "notice of claim" interchangeably when discussing section 7401 (2) ( see e.g. Viruet v. City of New York, 97 NY2d 171). Section 7401 (2) also states that "[a]ll the provisions of section fifty-e of the general municipal law shall apply to such notice [of intention].

  3. NYC Health + Hosps. v. Org. of Staff Analysts

    171 A.D.3d 529 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)   Cited 1 times

    The court properly deferred to the Board's rational interpretation of the applicable statutes, including the Board's finding that the exemption to public employees' eligibility for collective bargaining under the Taylor Law is controlling. Since the Taylor Law is incorporated into the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation Act and the exemptions are substantially consistent, the override provision of Unconsolidated Laws § 7405(5)"does not apply" ( Viruet v. City of New York, 97 N.Y.2d 171, 177, 738 N.Y.S.2d 2, 763 N.E.2d 1143 [2001] ). The "exclusions for managerial and confidential employees are an exception to the Taylor Law's strong policy of extending coverage to all public employees and are to be read narrowly, with all uncertainties resolved in favor of coverage" ( Matter of Lippman v. Public Empl. Relations Bd., 263 A.D.2d 891, 904, 694 N.Y.S.2d 510 [3d Dept. 1999] ; see Administrative Code of City of N.Y. § 12–305).

  4. Barnaman v. New York City Health

    2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 8891 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)

    upon the Comptroller of the City of New York and upon Queens Hospital Center, a medical facility operated by HHC, within 90 days after her claim accrued. The City of New York and HHC are separate entities for purposes of a notice of claim ( see Scantlebury v New York City Health Hosps. Corp., 4 NY3d at 611; Bender v New York City Health Hosps. Corp., 38 NY2d 662). Accordingly, service upon the Comptroller of the City of New York was insufficient to constitute service upon HHC, the proper party to be served ( see Scantlebury v New York City Health Hosps. Corp., 4 NY3d at 613;King v Wu , 18 AD3d 716, 717; Stallworth v New York City Health Hosps. Corp., 243 AD2d 704). Furthermore, serving a notice of claim upon Queens Hospital Center did not satisfy the statutory requirements mandating notification to the proper public body or official, in this case a director or officer of HHC or the Corporation Counsel ( see McKinney's Uncons Laws of NY § 7401[2]; General Municipal Law § 50-e[a]; Viruet v City of New York, 97 NY2d 171, 176; Parochial Bus Sys. v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 60 NY2d 539, 547-548; Bender v New York City Health Hosps. Corp., 38 NY2d at 665; Camarella v East Irondequoit Cent. School Bd., 34 NY2d 139, 142; Chesney v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 5, 5 NY2d 1007; Munroe v Booth, 305 NY 426). The plaintiff contends that the savings provision of General Municipal Law § 50-e(3)(c) is applicable here because Queens Hospital Center forwarded the notice of claim to HHC.

  5. Barnaman v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.

    90 A.D.3d 588 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)   Cited 18 times

    ty of New York and HHC are separate entities for purposes of a notice of claim ( see Scantlebury v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 4 N.Y.3d at 611, 797 N.Y.S.2d 394, 830 N.E.2d 292; Bender v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 38 N.Y.2d 662, 382 N.Y.S.2d 18, 345 N.E.2d 561). Accordingly, service upon the Comptroller of the City of New York was insufficient to constitute service upon HHC, the proper party to be served ( see Scantlebury v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 4 N.Y.3d at 613, 797 N.Y.S.2d 394, 830 N.E.2d 292; King v. Wu, 18 A.D.3d 716, 717, 797 N.Y.S.2d 499; Stallworth v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 243 A.D.2d 704, 663 N.Y.S.2d 287). Furthermore, serving a notice of claim upon Queens Hospital Center did not satisfy the statutory requirements mandating notification to the proper public body or official, in this case a director or officer of HHC or the Corporation Counsel ( see McKinney's Uncons Laws of N.Y. § 7401[2]; General Municipal Law § 50–e[3][a]; Viruet v. City of New York, 97 N.Y.2d 171, 176, 738 N.Y.S.2d 2, 763 N.E.2d 1143; Parochial Bus Sys. v. Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 60 N.Y.2d 539, 547–548, 470 N.Y.S.2d 564, 458 N.E.2d 1241; Bender v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 38 N.Y.2d at 665, 382 N.Y.S.2d 18, 345 N.E.2d 561; Camarella v. East Irondequoit Cent. School Bd., 34 N.Y.2d 139, 142, 356 N.Y.S.2d 553, 313 N.E.2d 29; Chesney v. Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 5, 5 N.Y.2d 1007, 185 N.Y.S.2d 263, 158 N.E.2d 125; Munroe v. Booth, 305 N.Y. 426, 113 N.E.2d 546). The plaintiff contends that the savings provision of General Municipal Law § 50–e(3)(c) is applicable here because Queens Hospital Center forwarded the notice of claim to HHC.

  6. Hall v. N.Y.C. Health Hospitals Corp.

    304 A.D.2d 617 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

    ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs. Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, her service of a notice of claim upon the Comptroller of the City of New York was insufficient to constitute service upon the defendant New York City Health Hospitals Corp. (hereinafter HHC) (see McKinney's Uncons Laws of N.Y. § 7401; Hazell v. New York City Health Hosps. Corp., 290 A.D.2d 533; Henderson v. City of New York, 259 A.D.2d 401; Stallworth v. New York City Health and Hosps. Corp., 243 A.D.2d 704; Oxley v. City of New York, 240 A.D.2d 643; cf. Viruet v. City of New York, 97 N.Y.2d 171). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted HHC's motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it for failure to properly serve a notice of claim. KRAUSMAN, J.P., TOWNES, CRANE and MASTRO, JJ., concur.

  7. NYC Health & Hosps. v. Commc'n Workers of Am.

    2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 32333 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2021)

    Since the Taylor Law is incorporated into the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation Act and the exemptions are substantially consistent, the override provision of McKinney's Unconsolidated Laws of NY § 7405 (5) (New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation Act § 24, as added by L 1969, ch 1016, § 1) "does not apply" (Viruet v City of New York, 97 N.Y.2d 171, 177 [2001 ]).

  8. Williams v. N.Y.C. Health & Hosps.

    62 Misc. 3d 462 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2018)   Cited 1 times

    of claim within 90 days after the accrual of a claim is a condition precedent to commencing an action against NYCHHC (see Uncons Laws § 7401 [2 ]; General Municipal Law § 50-e [1 ] [a]; Scantlebury v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp. , 4 N.Y.3d 606, 609, 797 N.Y.S.2d 394, 830 N.E.2d 292 [2005] ; Barnaman v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 90 A.D.3d 588, 588, 934 N.Y.S.2d 443 [2d Dept. 2011] ; Argudo v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 81 A.D.3d 575, 576, 916 N.Y.S.2d 143 [2d Dept. 2011] ; Wade v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 59 A.D.3d 528, 530, 874 N.Y.S.2d 171 [2d Dept. 2009] ; Urena v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 35 A.D.3d 446, 446, 825 N.Y.S.2d 529 [2d Dept. 2006] ). Petitioner's service of a notice of claim upon KCHC did not satisfy the statutory requirements mandating notification to the proper public body or official, i.e., a director or officer of NYCHHC or the Corporation Counsel (see Uncons Laws § 7401 [2 ]; General Municipal Law § 50-e [3 ] [a]; Viruet v. City of New York , 97 N.Y.2d 171, 176, 738 N.Y.S.2d 2, 763 N.E.2d 1143 [2001] ; Parochial Bus Sys. v. Board of Educ. of City of N.Y. , 60 N.Y.2d 539, 547-548, 470 N.Y.S.2d 564, 458 N.E.2d 1241 [1983] ; Bender v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp. , 38 N.Y.2d 662, 665, 382 N.Y.S.2d 18, 345 N.E.2d 561 [1976] ; Barnaman v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 90 A.D.3d 588, 589, 934 N.Y.S.2d 443 [2d Dept. 2011] ). Thus, service upon KCHC did not constitute service upon NYCHHC, a separate public entity (see General Municipal Law § 50-e [1 ]; Uncons Laws § 7401 [2 ]; Public Authorities Law § 2980 ; Scantlebury , 4 N.Y.3d at 613-614, 797 N.Y.S.2d 394, 830 N.E.2d 292 ; Williams v. City of New York , 74 A.D.3d 548, 549, 905 N.Y.S.2d 23 [1st Dept. 2010] ).

  9. Savarese v. City of New York

    2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 32983 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2010)

    The purpose of a notice of claim is to provide the public corporation to whom it is directed with notice of a proposed petitioner's claim so that the proposed respondent can conduct a proper investigation and evaluate the merits of the claim asserted. SeeViruet v. City of New York, 97 NY2d 171 (2001).