From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Frank v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 10, 1997
240 A.D.2d 198 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

June 10, 1997

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.).


The action was properly dismissed on the basis that notice of claim was not served until the 91st day after the accident and no motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim was made within the one-year-and-ninety-day Statute of Limitations ( Pierson v City of New York, 56 N.Y.2d 950). The City's conduct of a General Municipal Law § 50-h hearing and participation in years of litigation did not preclude it from first raising the untimeliness of the notice of claim after the action was well advanced, and it was free to do so up until the trial ( Velez v City of New York, 157 A.D.2d 370, 374, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 715; Rodriguez v. City of New York, 169 A.D.2d 532). In addition, the fact that the most recent Big Apple map on file with the Department of Transportation did not show a defect at the location where plaintiff allegedly fell was correctly held to be an alternative ground for dismissal ( Katz v. City of New York, 87 N.Y.2d 241).

Concur — Murphy, P.J., Milonas, Rosenberger, Wallach and Andrias, JJ.


Summaries of

Frank v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 10, 1997
240 A.D.2d 198 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

Frank v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:JANET FRANK, Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent, et al., Defendants

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Jun 10, 1997

Citations

240 A.D.2d 198 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
658 N.Y.S.2d 293

Citing Cases

Williams v. New York City Transit Auth.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Norma Ruiz, J.), entered July 12, 2010, which granted defendants' motion…

Wade v. New York City Health and Hospitals

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs. Contrary to the plaintiffs' assertion, the defendant was…