Plaza v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

New York Court of Appeals

Plaza v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

993 N.E.2d 409, 21 N.Y.3d 983

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 26, 2013

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 993 N.E.2d 409 (Plaza v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Plaza v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp., 993 N.E.2d 409, 21 N.Y.3d 983 (N.Y. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs. The certified question should not be answered on the ground that it is unnecessary.

Plaintiff admittedly served a late notice of claim against defendant without seeking leave of court.

General Municipal Law § 50-e (1) requires that a claimant serve a notice of claim against a public corporation within 90 days after a tort claim arises. However, section 50-e (5) provides that a court, “in its discretion,” may grant an application extending the time to serve a notice of claim as long as the application is made within the limitations period for commencing the action, including any tolls or extensions. CPLR 208 provides that “[i]f a person entitled to commence an action is under a disability because of infancy ... at the time the cause of action accrues, and . . . the time otherwise limited [for commencing the action] is less than three years, the time shall be extended by the period of disability.” Where a medical malpractice action accrues during infancy, the extension is limited to 10 years from the time of accrual (see CPLR 208).

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott, Rivera and Abdus-Salaam concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, and certified question not answered on the ground that it is unnecessary, in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs. The certified question should not be answered on the ground that it is unnecessary.

Plaintiff admittedly served a late notice of claim against defendant without seeking leave of court.

General Municipal Law § 50-e (1) requires that a claimant serve a notice of claim against a public corporation within 90 days after a tort claim arises. However, section 50-e (5) provides that a court, “in its discretion,” may grant an application extending the time to serve a notice of claim as long as the application is made within the limitations period for commencing the action, including any tolls or extensions. CPLR 208 provides that “[i]f a person entitled to commence an action is under a disability because of infancy ... at the time the cause of action accrues, and . . . the time otherwise limited [for commencing the action] is less than three years, the time shall be extended by the period of disability.” Where a medical malpractice action accrues during infancy, the extension is limited to 10 years from the time of accrual (see CPLR 208).

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott, Rivera and Abdus-Salaam concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, and certified question not answered on the ground that it is unnecessary, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

993 N.E.2d 409, 21 N.Y.3d 983, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/plaza-v-new-york-city-health-hospitals-corp-ny-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack