AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes

RENE CINTRON et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant. (Action No. 1.) RENE CINTRON et al., Respondents,

In actions to recover damages, inter alia, for personal injuries, the defendant in Action No. 2, New York City Housing Authority, appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jordan, J.), dated June 1, 1979, as granted plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a notice of claim against it nunc pro tunc, and denied its cross motion to dismiss the complaint against it. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, motion denied, cross motion granted and complaint dismissed in Action No. 2. Plaintiffs commenced their action against defendant, New York City Housing Authority, within one year and 90 days from the accrual of the action, but did not move for permission to serve a late notice of claim until approximately 23 months after the accrual of the action. On the facts of this case, Special Term erred in granting the motion. It could only grant leave to file a late notice of claim if the application was made within the period permitted for commencing the action (see General Municipal Law, § 50-e, subd 5), in this case, one year and 90 days (Public Housing Law, § 157, subd 2). The failure of plaintiffs to seek a judicial extension of the 90-day period for serving the notice of claim prior to the expiration of one year and 90 days, precluded the exercise of judicial discretion to allow a filing of a late notice of claim (see Hines v City of Buffalo, 79 A.D.2d 218; Fraccola v City of Utica, 77 A.D.2d 161). Damiani, J.P., Lazer, Gibbons and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

CINTRON v. CITY OF NEW YORK
(Jun 1, 1981)