Petitioner contends that her notice of claim against defendant Housing Authority was not timely served because her attorney only belatedly ascertained that the owner of the premises where plaintiff's accident is alleged to have occurred was not the City of New York but defendant Housing Authority. The failure of plaintiff to communicate to her attorney the proper party to sue, however, does not, particularly under the present circumstances in which the identity of the owner of the subject premises was easily ascertainable, excuse plaintiff's failure to serve a timely notice of claim (see, Quinn v. Manhattan and Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 273 A.D.2d 144; Seif v. City of New York, 218 A.D.2d 595, 596). Additionally, we would note that the description of the claim, even if timely served, would have been insufficient in describing the place and nature of the accident, and would not have provided respondent with adequate notice to conduct a meaningful investigation.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.