Belpasso v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Belpasso v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey

103 A.D.3d 561, 959 N.Y.S.2d 442

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedFebruary 26, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 103 A.D.3d 561 (Belpasso v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Belpasso v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, 103 A.D.3d 561, 959 N.Y.S.2d 442 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered September 8, 2011, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that any papers or pleadings previously served upon defendant satisfied the statutory notice of claim requirements which require, among other things, that the notice of claim be sworn to by the claimant and served at least 60 days prior to commencement of an action against defendant (see McKinney’s Uncons Laws of NY §§ 7107, 7108). Absent compliance with the notice of claim requirement, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction (see Lyons v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 228 AD2d 250 [1st Dept 1996]; Luciano v Fanberg Realty Co., 102 AD2d 94, 96 [1984]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Acosta, Freedman, Richter and Gische, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered September 8, 2011, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that any papers or pleadings previously served upon defendant satisfied the statutory notice of claim requirements which require, among other things, that the notice of claim be sworn to by the claimant and served at least 60 days prior to commencement of an action against defendant (see McKinney’s Uncons Laws of NY §§ 7107, 7108). Absent compliance with the notice of claim requirement, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction (see Lyons v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 228 AD2d 250 [1st Dept 1996]; Luciano v Fanberg Realty Co., 102 AD2d 94, 96 [1984]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Acosta, Freedman, Richter and Gische, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

103 A.D.3d 561, 959 N.Y.S.2d 442, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/belpasso-v-port-authority-of-new-york-new-jersey-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack