Williams v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Williams v. New York City Transit Authority

90 A.D.3d 522, 934 N.Y.2d 313

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 15, 2011·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Plaintiff failed to timely serve a notice of claim on the Transit Authority, which was not obligated to alert her to that fact and which neither waived the defense nor is equitably estopped from raising it (see General Municipal Law § 50-e [1] [a]; Wollins v New York City Bd. of Educ., 8 AD3d 30, 31 [2004]; Mc-Crae v City of New York, 44 AD3d 306 [2007]; Frank v City of New York, 240 AD2d 198 [1997]).

The lease between the City and the Transit Authority establishes that the City was not responsible for maintenance of the subway station. Concur — Tom, J.E, Friedman, Freedman, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

Plaintiff failed to timely serve a notice of claim on the Transit Authority, which was not obligated to alert her to that fact and which neither waived the defense nor is equitably estopped from raising it (see General Municipal Law § 50-e [1] [a]; Wollins v New York City Bd. of Educ., 8 AD3d 30, 31 [2004]; Mc-Crae v City of New York, 44 AD3d 306 [2007]; Frank v City of New York, 240 AD2d 198 [1997]).

The lease between the City and the Transit Authority establishes that the City was not responsible for maintenance of the subway station. Concur — Tom, J.E, Friedman, Freedman, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Williams v. New York City Transit Authority, 90 A.D.3d 522, 934 N.Y.2d 313 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

90 A.D.3d 522 (Williams v. New York City Transit Authority) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related