From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mazzola v. Kelly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 26, 2001
281 A.D.2d 604 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

Submitted January 31, 2001.

March 26, 2001.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Commack Union Free School District appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Seidell, J.), dated October 19, 2000, which denied its motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it and granted the plaintiff's cross motion pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e(5) for leave to file a late notice of claim.

Lamb Barnosky, LLP, Melville, N.Y. (Scott M. Karson of counsel), for appellant.

Ahern Ahern, Kings Park, N.Y. (Dennis P. Ahern of counsel), for respondent.

Before: CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, J.P., WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, NANCY E. SMITH, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the cross motion is denied, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellant, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.

The plaintiff was born on March 19, 1981. She commenced this action on March 17, 2000, against, among others, the appellant, Commack Union Free School District (hereinafter the District), to recover damages for injuries arising out of several incidents which occurred between the years 1992 through 1994, when she was an infant. The District moved to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it on the ground that the plaintiff never served it with a notice of claim. In response, the plaintiff, by notice of motion dated June 23, 2000, cross-moved, inter alia, for leave to serve a late notice of claim. By order dated October 19, 2000, the Supreme Court denied the District's motion and granted the plaintiff's cross motion. We reverse.

The plaintiff failed to make an application for leave to serve a late notice of claim within one year and 90 days of when her infancy ended. Accordingly, the Supreme Court lacked the power to extend her time to serve a late notice of claim or to deem a late notice of claim timely served nunc pro tunc (see, Pierson v. City of New York, 56 N.Y.2d 950, 954; Noel v. Shahbaz, 274 A.D.2d 381, 382; Jackson v. New York City Transit Auth., 274 A.D.2d 501; Hey v. Town of Napoli, 265 A.D.2d 803).


Summaries of

Mazzola v. Kelly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 26, 2001
281 A.D.2d 604 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

Mazzola v. Kelly

Case Details

Full title:MARCIE MAZZOLA, RESPONDENT, v. EDWARD J. KELLY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS…

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

Date published: Mar 26, 2001

Citations

281 A.D.2d 604 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
722 N.Y.S.2d 70

Citing Cases

Segure v. City of N.Y.

It should be noted that this Court takes very seriously the fact that the claimant is an infant. However,…

Maldonaldo v. City of New York

Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the delay in serving the notice, or…