Jagmohan v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jagmohan v. City of New York

14 A.D.3d 491, 788 N.Y.S.2d 165, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 191

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

DecidedJanuary 10, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 14 A.D.3d 491 (Jagmohan 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

Jagmohan v. City of New York, 14 A.D.3d 491, 788 N.Y.S.2d 165, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 191 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Steinhardt, J.), dated September 18, 2003, as granted the plaintiffs motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim, and (2) an order of the same court dated May 5, 2004, as, upon reargument, adhered to its prior determination.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated September 18, 2003, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order dated May 5, 2004, made upon reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated May 5, 2004, is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, upon reargument, the motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim is denied, and the order [492]*492dated September 18, 2003, is modified accordingly; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the appellants.

The plaintiff failed to timely serve the defendants with her motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim, since she mailed the motion papers to the office of the Corporation Counsel at the wrong address (see CPLR 2103 [b] [2]; [f] [1]; see generally City Bank Farmers Trust Co. v Cohen, 300 NY 361 [1950]; Lawrence v Ellis Agency, 138 AD2d 980 [1988]). Moreover, the Corporation Counsel did not acquire actual notice of the motion until more than one year and 90 days after the cause of action accrued. Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court erred in granting the plaintiff leave to serve a late notice of claim, as it lacked the authority to do so (see General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]; Pierson v City of New York, 56 NY2d 950 [1982]; Hochberg v City of New York, 99 AD2d 1028 [1984], affd 63 NY2d 665 [1984]; McSherry v Hawthorne School, 246 AD2d 517 [1998]; Bell v Town of Oyster Bay, 233 AD2d 282 [1996]). Florio, J.P., Adams, Cozier and Mastro, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Steinhardt, J.), dated September 18, 2003, as granted the plaintiffs motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim, and (2) an order of the same court dated May 5, 2004, as, upon reargument, adhered to its prior determination.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated September 18, 2003, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order dated May 5, 2004, made upon reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated May 5, 2004, is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, upon reargument, the motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim is denied, and the order [492]*492dated September 18, 2003, is modified accordingly; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the appellants.

The plaintiff failed to timely serve the defendants with her motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim, since she mailed the motion papers to the office of the Corporation Counsel at the wrong address (see CPLR 2103 [b] [2]; [f] [1]; see generally City Bank Farmers Trust Co. v Cohen, 300 NY 361 [1950]; Lawrence v Ellis Agency, 138 AD2d 980 [1988]). Moreover, the Corporation Counsel did not acquire actual notice of the motion until more than one year and 90 days after the cause of action accrued. Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court erred in granting the plaintiff leave to serve a late notice of claim, as it lacked the authority to do so (see General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]; Pierson v City of New York, 56 NY2d 950 [1982]; Hochberg v City of New York, 99 AD2d 1028 [1984], affd 63 NY2d 665 [1984]; McSherry v Hawthorne School, 246 AD2d 517 [1998]; Bell v Town of Oyster Bay, 233 AD2d 282 [1996]). Florio, J.P., Adams, Cozier and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 A.D.3d 491, 788 N.Y.S.2d 165, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 191, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jagmohan-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack