Washington v. Brookdale Hospital

126 A.D.2d 719, 511 N.Y.S.2d 317, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 41865
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 26, 1987
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 126 A.D.2d 719 (Washington v. Brookdale Hospital) 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
Washington v. Brookdale Hospital, 126 A.D.2d 719, 511 N.Y.S.2d 317, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 41865 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Opinion

In a wrongful death action, the defendant New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (McBrien, J.), dated June 25, 1985, which granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which sought to amend a previously served notice of claim, summons and complaint, by deleting the name Kings County Hospital and inserting the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation as the proper party defendant therein, said amendment taking effect nunc pro tunc.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs or disbursements, and the motion is denied.

[720]*720The plaintiff timely served a notice of claim, summons and complaint upon Kings County Hospital. Approximately six months after being advised by the Corporation Counsel of the City of New York that Kings County Hospital was "a jurisdictional non-entity”, the plaintiff moved for an order permitting her to serve and file a late notice of claim against the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, nunc pro tunc, or amending her previously served notice of claim, summons and complaint to substitute the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation for Kings County Hospital.

The plaintiff failed to make the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation a party to her application (see, Marku v City of New York, 86 AD2d 601). What is more, she also failed to include a copy of the proposed amended notice of claim, summons and complaint with her motion papers, as a consequence of which the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation did not receive a copy of the summons and complaint until after Special Term decided the motion.

Prior to Special Term’s determination in this case, the Statute of Limitations expired. Special Term could not, by ordering the summons and complaint served nunc pro tunc, grant the plaintiff permission to serve an amended notice of claim, summons and complaint after the expiration of the Statute of Limitations and Special Term had no jurisdiction to substitute a nonparty, which had not been given notice of the application, for a party (see, Gagliardi v New York City Hous. Auth., 88 AD2d 610; Gold v City of New York, 80 AD2d 138). Niehoff, J. P., Kunzeman, Kooper and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Farrell v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.
2025 NY Slip Op 30050(U) (New York Supreme Court, Kings County, 2025)
Fargo v. Tyson
82 A.D.3d 757 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Nowinski v. City of New York
189 A.D.2d 674 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
126 A.D.2d 719, 511 N.Y.S.2d 317, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 41865, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/washington-v-brookdale-hospital-nyappdiv-1987.