Patel v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

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

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

DecidedJune 4, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 184 A.D.2d 235 (Patel v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey) 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

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).

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

184 A.D.2d 235, 586 N.Y.S.2d 747, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7701, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patel-v-port-authority-of-new-york-new-jersey-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack