Castro-Castillo v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Castro-Castillo v. City of New York

78 A.D.3d 406, 910 N.Y.S.2d 68

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

DecidedNovember 4, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 78 A.D.3d 406 (Castro-Castillo v. City of New York) 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

Castro-Castillo v. City of New York, 78 A.D.3d 406, 910 N.Y.S.2d 68 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold B. Beeler, J.), entered July 15, 2009, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to serve a notice of claim upon the proper party, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff was allegedly injured in a slip and fall on a slushy subway staircase. Although she served a timely notice of claim on the City and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), she failed to serve such a notice upon the proper party, defendant New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA), which operates the subway system. It is well settled that service of the requisite notice of claim must be made upon the correct party (Williams v City of New York, 74 AD3d 548 [2010]), and a plaintiff may not avoid dismissal in that regard by invoking the savings provision of General Municipal Law § 50-e (3) (c) (Scantlebury v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 4 NY3d 606 [2005]; Diaz v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 56 AD3d 317 [2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 712 [2009]). The notice of claim that was served listed only the City and the MTA. Even though these papers were subsequently transmitted by those defendants to NYCTA for a hearing under General Municipal Law § 50-h, that cannot be considered appropriate service (see Cottiers v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 303 AD2d 187 [2003]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Friedman, Catterson, DeGrasse and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold B. Beeler, J.), entered July 15, 2009, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to serve a notice of claim upon the proper party, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff was allegedly injured in a slip and fall on a slushy subway staircase. Although she served a timely notice of claim on the City and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), she failed to serve such a notice upon the proper party, defendant New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA), which operates the subway system. It is well settled that service of the requisite notice of claim must be made upon the correct party (Williams v City of New York, 74 AD3d 548 [2010]), and a plaintiff may not avoid dismissal in that regard by invoking the savings provision of General Municipal Law § 50-e (3) (c) (Scantlebury v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 4 NY3d 606 [2005]; Diaz v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 56 AD3d 317 [2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 712 [2009]). The notice of claim that was served listed only the City and the MTA. Even though these papers were subsequently transmitted by those defendants to NYCTA for a hearing under General Municipal Law § 50-h, that cannot be considered appropriate service (see Cottiers v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 303 AD2d 187 [2003]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Friedman, Catterson, DeGrasse and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 A.D.3d 406, 910 N.Y.S.2d 68, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/castro-castillo-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack