Home/Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York/Diaz v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

Diaz v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

56 A.D.2d 317, 866 N.Y.S.2d 868
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 18, 2008·Published

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Douglas E. McKeon, J), entered July 27, 2007, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to serve a notice of claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

General Municipal Law § 50-e (3) (c) “does not excuse a plaintiff’s failure to serve a timely notice of claim on the correct public entity, which is what happened here when plaintiff served [his] notice on the Comptroller rather than HHC” (Scantlebury v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 4 NY3d 606, 608 [2005]).

Nor does the alleged agreement with a Corporation Counsel attorney constitute either a waiver of the notice of claim require[318]*318ment (see Badgett v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 227 AD2d 127, 128 [1996]) or a ground for application of the doctrine of equitable estoppel against HHC (see Hochberg v City of New York, 99 AD2d 1028 [1984], affd 63 NY2d 665 [1984]). Concur—Saxe, J.P., Nardelli, Moskowitz, Renwick and Freedman, JJ.

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

Diaz v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp., 56 A.D.2d 317, 866 N.Y.S.2d 868 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

56 A.D.2d 317 (Diaz v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Scantlebury v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.
830 N.E.2d 292 (New York Court of Appeals, 2005)
Hochberg v. City of New York
468 N.E.2d 706 (New York Court of Appeals, 1984)
Hochberg v. City of New York
99 A.D.2d 1028 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)
Badgett v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.
227 A.D.2d 127 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)