Browne v. New York City Transit Authority — 90 A.D.3d 965

Majority

p. 965

Sandra Browne, Appellant, v New York City Transit Authority, Respondent.

[934 NYS2d 821]

The plaintiffs late service of a notice of claim upon the defendant was a nullity, as it was made without leave of the court (see Ellman v Village of Rhinebeck, 27 AD3d 414 , 415 [2006]; Alston v Aversano, 24 AD3d 399 [2005]; Pierre v City of New York, 22 AD3d 733 [2005]). Furthermore, since the plaintiff cross-moved to deem the notice of claim timely served nunc pro tunc after the one-year-and-90-day statute of limitations had expired, the Supreme Court did not have the authority to grant such relief (see General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]; § 50-i [1]; Pierson v City of New York, 56 NY2d 950 , 954 [1982]; Argudo v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 81 AD3d 575 , 576-577 [2011]; Ellman v Village of Rhinebeck, 27 AD3d at 415 ; Friedman v City of New York, 19 AD3d 542 , 543 [2005]; Small v New York City Tr. Auth., 14 AD3d 690 , 691 [2005]).

The plaintiff contends that the defendant was estopped from moving to dismiss the complaint based on her failure to serve a timely notice of claim. Equitable estoppel against a public corporation will lie only when the conduct of the public corporation was calculated to or negligently did mislead or discourage a

p. 966

party from serving a timely notice of claim, and when that conduct was justifiably relied upon by that party (see Bender v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 38 NY2d 662 , 668 [1976]; Dier v Suffolk County Water Auth., 84 AD3d 861 , 862 [2011]; Dorce v United Rentals N. Am,, Inc., 78 AD3d 1110 , 1111 [2010]; Vandermast v New York City Tr. Auth., 71 AD3d 1127 [2010]; Wade v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 16 AD3d 677 [2005]). Here, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the defendant engaged in any misleading conduct that would support a finding of equitable estoppel (see Dier v Suffolk County Water Auth., 84 AD3d at 862 ; Dorce v United Rentals N. Am., Inc., 78 AD3d at 1111 ; Vandermast v New York City Tr. Auth., 71 AD3d at 1128 ). The letter by the defendant informing the plaintiff of a defect in the form of the notice of claim did not constitute conduct that would warrant an estoppel (see Vandermast v New York City Tr. Auth., 71 AD3d at 1127, 1128 ; Walter H. Poppe Gen. Contr. v Town of Ramapo, 280 AD2d 667 , 668 [2001]). Rivera, J.R, Florio, Eng, Hall and Cohen, JJ., concur.

Cases cited

Alston v. Aversano 24 AD3d 399 N.Y. App. Div. 2005-12-05 p. 965
Pierre v. City of New York 22 AD3d 733 N.Y. App. Div. 2005-10-24 p. 965
Pierson v. City of New York 56 NY2d 950 N.Y. 1982-06-17 at 954 p. 965
Argudo v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp. 81 AD3d 575 N.Y. App. Div. 2011-02-01 at 576-577 p. 965
Friedman v. City of New York 19 AD3d 542 N.Y. App. Div. 2005-06-20 at 543 p. 965
Small v. New York City Transit Authority 14 AD3d 690 N.Y. App. Div. 2005-01-31 at 691 p. 965
Bender v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp. 38 NY2d 662 N.Y. 1976-02-19 at 668 p. 966
Dorce v. United Rentals North America, Inc. 78 AD3d 1110 N.Y. App. Div. 2010-11-30 at 1111 p. 966
Wade v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp. 16 AD3d 677 N.Y. App. Div. 2005-03-28 p. 966
Walter H. Poppe General Contracting, Inc. v. Town of Ramapo 280 AD2d 667 N.Y. App. Div. 2001-02-26 at 668 p. 966

Statutes and regulations cited

General Municipal Law p. 965