ARMSTRONG v. N.Y. CONVENTION CTR. OPERATING

The court lacked the discretion to excuse plaintiffs' late service of their notice of claim since their motion for such relief was not made until after the one-year Statute of Limitations had run, and it makes no difference that plaintiffs, without court leave, had served the notice of claim within the limitations period. (Pierson v City of New York, 56 N.Y.2d 950.) Jeshurin v Liberty Lines Tr. ( 191 A.D.2d 412) is distinguishable, since here defendant's answer, served almost two months prior to the expiration of the limitations period, provided plaintiffs with clear notice that their complaint was dismissible for failure to timely serve a notice of claim.

Concur — Carro, J.P., Kupferman, Asch, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.