Harper v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Harper v. City of New York

92 A.D.3d 505, 937 N.Y.2d 857

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 14, 2012·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) only vests the court with the discretion to deem a notice of claim timely filed if the motion seeking such relief is made before the statute of limitations expires (Pierson v City of New York, 56 NY2d 950, 954-955 [1982]; McKie v LaGuardia Community Coll./CUNY, 85 AD3d 453 [2011]). Here, plaintiffs’ claims accrued on June 3, 1998, and the notice of claim was filed on September 2, 1998, one day after the 90 days allotted by General Municipal Law § 50-e (1) (a). Moreover, the statute of limitations for tort claims against a municipal entity is one year and 90 days after the event occurred (see General Municipal Law § 50-i [1]). Accordingly, plaintiffs’ cross motion, dated August 30, 2010, should have been denied since it was brought well after the statute of limitations for their claims had expired (see McKie at 454; Matter of [506] Goffredo v City of New York, 33 AD3d 346, 347 [2006]). Concur— Mazzarelli, J.E, Saxe, Moskowitz, Freedman and ManzanetDaniels, JJ.

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

General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) only vests the court with the discretion to deem a notice of claim timely filed if the motion seeking such relief is made before the statute of limitations expires (Pierson v City of New York, 56 NY2d 950, 954-955 [1982]; McKie v LaGuardia Community Coll./CUNY, 85 AD3d 453 [2011]). Here, plaintiffs’ claims accrued on June 3, 1998, and the notice of claim was filed on September 2, 1998, one day after the 90 days allotted by General Municipal Law § 50-e (1) (a). Moreover, the statute of limitations for tort claims against a municipal entity is one year and 90 days after the event occurred (see General Municipal Law § 50-i [1]). Accordingly, plaintiffs’ cross motion, dated August 30, 2010, should have been denied since it was brought well after the statute of limitations for their claims had expired (see McKie at 454; Matter of [506] Goffredo v City of New York, 33 AD3d 346, 347 [2006]). Concur— Mazzarelli, J.E, Saxe, Moskowitz, Freedman and ManzanetDaniels, JJ.

Harper v. City of New York, 92 A.D.3d 505, 937 N.Y.2d 857 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

92 A.D.3d 505 (Harper v. City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related