While defendant's motion, denominated as one for summary judgment, should have been treated as a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211, in light of defendant's failure to file an answer (see, Goldfeld v. Mattoon Communications Corp., 99 A.D.2d 711, 712, appeal dismissed 62 N.Y.2d 802), the issues of res judicata, collateral estoppel and the Statute of Limitations were nonetheless properly before the court (see, CPLR 3211[e] and [a][5]) and properly addressed on the merits. This action, seeking damages for the demolition of plaintiff's building, demolished by defendant pursuant to a court order issued in an unsafe building proceeding, was correctly found by the motion court to be barred by the doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata, inasmuch as plaintiff's present claim was determined against her in now-concluded condemnation proceedings (see, Buechel v. Bain, ___ N.Y.2d __; 2001 N.Y. LEXIS 3814). We note, as did the motion court, that even if the action were not precluded under the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel, its dismissal would nonetheless be mandated since it is time-barred by reason of plaintiff's failure to serve and file a timely notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e(1).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.