Patel v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey

184 A.D.2d 235, 586 N.Y.S.2d 747, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7701
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 4, 1992·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme [236]*236Court, New York County (Diane A. Lebedeff, J.), entered August 29, 1990, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the IAS court that the letter plaintiff relies on does not comport with the specific requirements for a notice of claim as against a State agency (McKinney’s Uncons Laws of NY § 7108 [L 1950, ch 301, § 8, as amended]), and that since a court may not waive jurisdictional defects in the service of a notice of claim in the absence of statutory authority (Luciano v Fanberg Realty Co., 102 AD2d 94, 98), the action must be dismissed. Moreover, plaintiff’s failure to serve the complaint within 20 days after defendant’s demand therefor (CPLR 3012 [b]), or within one year after accrual of his cause of action (Trippe v Port of N. Y. Auth., 14 NY2d 119, 124) is additional grounds for dismissal. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Wallach and Ross, JJ.

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

Patel v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, 184 A.D.2d 235, 586 N.Y.S.2d 747, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7701 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

184 A.D.2d 235 (Patel v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Megrant Properties, Inc. v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey
191 Misc. 2d 334 (New York Supreme Court, 2002)
City of New York v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey
284 A.D.2d 195 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Estate of Pearlberg v. Port Authority
210 A.D.2d 199 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)