Kapitanova v. New York City Tr. Auth.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Kapitanova v. New York City Tr. Auth.

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedDecember 29, 2016

Docket2016 NYSlipOp 51823(U)

StatusPublished

This text of Kapitanova v. New York City Tr. Auth. (Kapitanova v. New York City Tr. Auth.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kapitanova v. New York City Tr. Auth., (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Nina Kapitanova, Plaintiff-Appellant,

against

New York City Transit Authority, Defendant-Respondent.

Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Gerald Lebovits, J.), entered on October 2, 2015, which granted defendant's motion to vacate the default judgment and to dismiss the complaint.

Per Curiam.

Order (Gerald Lebovits, J.), entered October 2, 2015, affirmed, without costs.

Civil Court properly vacated the default judgment and dismissed the complaint. Defendant's failure to timely answer was neither willful nor intentional, and was adequately explained as attributable to law office failure (see Rosenblatt v New York City Tr. Auth., 122 AD3d 410 [2014]; Acevedo v New York City Tr. Auth., 16 AD3d 144 [2005]).

Defendant also presented a meritorious defense to this action. Plaintiff's notice of claim was not served within 90 days of the date on which her claim arose (see General Municipal Law § 50-e[1][a]; Hunte v New York City Tr. Auth., 119 AD3d 735, 735-736 [2014]), and she failed to move for leave to serve a late notice of claim within one year and ninety days after the claim arose (see Singleton v City of New York, 55 AD3d 447 [2008]). As the notice of claim requirement is deemed "an indispensable element of the substantive causes of action," the complaint was properly dismissed (Mojica v New York City Tr. Auth., 117 AD2d 722, 724 [1986]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur
Decision Date: December 29, 2016

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

Nina Kapitanova, Plaintiff-Appellant,

against

New York City Transit Authority, Defendant-Respondent.

Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Gerald Lebovits, J.), entered on October 2, 2015, which granted defendant's motion to vacate the default judgment and to dismiss the complaint.

Per Curiam.

Order (Gerald Lebovits, J.), entered October 2, 2015, affirmed, without costs.

Civil Court properly vacated the default judgment and dismissed the complaint. Defendant's failure to timely answer was neither willful nor intentional, and was adequately explained as attributable to law office failure (see Rosenblatt v New York City Tr. Auth., 122 AD3d 410 [2014]; Acevedo v New York City Tr. Auth., 16 AD3d 144 [2005]).

Defendant also presented a meritorious defense to this action. Plaintiff's notice of claim was not served within 90 days of the date on which her claim arose (see General Municipal Law § 50-e[1][a]; Hunte v New York City Tr. Auth., 119 AD3d 735, 735-736 [2014]), and she failed to move for leave to serve a late notice of claim within one year and ninety days after the claim arose (see Singleton v City of New York, 55 AD3d 447 [2008]). As the notice of claim requirement is deemed "an indispensable element of the substantive causes of action," the complaint was properly dismissed (Mojica v New York City Tr. Auth., 117 AD2d 722, 724 [1986]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur
Decision Date: December 29, 2016

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Kapitanova v. New York City Tr. Auth., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kapitanova-v-new-york-city-tr-auth-nyappterm-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack