Summary
In Armstrong v. New York Convention Center Operating Corporation (203 A.D.2d 170), a case virtually indistinguishable from the present one, this Court upheld the denial of plaintiff's application "for leave to serve a late notice of claim nunc pro tunc," made after the statute of limitations had expired.
Summary of this case from Hall v. City of New YorkOpinion
April 21, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (William Davis, J.).
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.