Opinion
June 26, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.).
Ordered that the order is reversed, with costs, the motion is granted, the cross motion is denied, and the action is dismissed.
The Health and Hospitals Corporation (hereinafter the HHC) is a separate and distinct entity from the defendant City of New York (see, McKinney's Uncons Laws of N Y § 7384 [1]; § 7385 [5]; § 7401 [4]; [New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation Act § 4 (1); § 5 (5); § 20 (4) (L 1969, ch 1016, § 1, as amended)]; Brennan v. City of New York, 59 N.Y.2d 791, 792). Since the alleged tort-feasor, the Emergency Medical Service, is a subdivision of the HHC, the HHC was the proper party to be served with a notice of claim and a summons and complaint (see, General Municipal Law § 50-e; McKinney's Uncons Laws of N Y § 7401 [2]). No jurisdiction was acquired over the HHC by virtue of service of the summons and complaint on the defendant City of New York.
The plaintiff's application for leave to serve a late notice of claim and to add the HHC as a party was not made within 1 year and 90 days after the claim accrued nor was the HHC served with a summons and complaint at any time within that period. As a result, the Supreme Court was without discretion to grant the relief requested (see, McKinney's Uncons Laws of N Y § 7401 [2]; General Municipal Law § 50-e; Cohen v. Pearl Riv. Union Free School Dist., 51 N.Y.2d 256, 262; Matter of Lopez v. City of New York, 123 A.D.2d 765; Matter of Mazzilli v. City of New York, 115 A.D.2d 604, 605; Ferrara v. Terryville Fire Dist., 110 A.D.2d 749).
In its answer, the defendant City of New York denied it owned or controlled the Emergency Medical Service or that the notice of claim was served pursuant to the General Municipal Law. There is no duty to raise the failure to serve a notice of claim as an affirmative defense (see, Nicholas v. City of New York, 130 A.D.2d 470, 471). The fact that the Corporation Counsel represents both the City of New York and the HHC does not provide the necessary nexus to attribute the acts of the HHC to the City of New York (see, Leventhal v. Health Hosps. Corp., 108 A.D.2d 730, 731). As a result, there was no basis upon which to equitably estop the defendant City of New York from disclaiming that it was the proper party to the action (see, Lopez v. City of New York, 123 A.D.2d 765, supra; Leventhal v. Health Hosps. Corp., supra, at 731; Thomas v. City of New York, 102 A.D.2d 867, 868; Luka v. New York City Tr. Auth., 100 A.D.2d 323, 324-325, affd 63 N.Y.2d 667).
We have considered the plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Rubin, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.