Opinion
2002-01116
Submitted October 22, 2002.
November 12, 2002.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.), dated December 19, 2001, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Emmanuel O. Onuaguluchi, P.C., Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellants.
Nesci, Keane, Pierkarski, Keogh Corrigan (Melito Adolfsen, P.C., New York, N.Y. [Ignatius John Melito and Amy C. Clauss] of counsel), for respondent.
Before: A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J., MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff Dorinda Lawrence was injured in a bus accident on August 16, 1999. As the plaintiffs now concede, they had an obligation to serve a notice of claim on the County of Westchester within 90 days after the accident and prior to the commencement of this action (see General Municipal Law §§ 50-b; 50-e[1][b]; 50-e[1][a]; Coleman v. Westchester St. Transp. Co., 57 N.Y.2d 734; Kossifos v. Liberty Lines Tr., 277 A.D.2d 205; Delisca v. Liberty Lines Tr., 272 A.D.2d 291; Singer v. Liberty Lines, 183 A.D.2d 820; McSpedon v. Liberty Lines, 109 A.D.2d 731; James v. Liberty Lines, 97 A.D.2d 749).
Apparently, the plaintiffs' attorney mailed an application for no-fault benefits to a claims administrator for the defendant Liberty Lines Transit, Inc., within 90 days after the accident. However, there is no proof that this document was received within that 90-day period by a "proper person" (General Municipal Law §§ 50-e[a]; 50-e[3][c]; cf. Tacinelli v. Liberty Lines, 123 A.D.2d 756). Moreover, the no-fault application did not constitute the equivalent of a notice of claim (see Zydyk v. New York City Tr Auth., 151 A.D.2d 745; cf. Smith v. Scott, 294 A.D.2d 11). Thus, the receipt of the application for no-fault benefits by an agent of the defendant's claims administrator does not satisfy the statutory requirement of service of a notice of claim on the County (see Kossifos v. Liberty Lines Tr., supra; Delisca v. Liberty Lines Tr., supra; cf. Santiago v. Liberty Lines Tr., 259 A.D.2d 362; Gallagher v. Liberty Lines, 211 A.D.2d 440; Miller v. Liberty Lines Tr., 208 A.D.2d 454; Losada v. Liberty Lines Tr., 155 A.D.2d 337).
PRUDENTI, P.J., ALTMAN, FRIEDMANN and RIVERA, JJ., concur.