Barnaman v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.

• Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
• Citation: 90 A.D.3d 588,934 N.Y.S.2d 443,2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 08891
• Parties: Jedina BARNAMAN, appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION, et al., respondents.
• Decision Date: 06 December 2011

2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 08891
90 A.D.3d 588
934 N.Y.S.2d 443

Jedina BARNAMAN, appellant,
v.
NEW YORK CITY HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION, et al., respondents.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Dec. 6, 2011.

[934 N.Y.S.2d 444]

Nnebe & Associates, P.C., Williamsburg, N.Y. (O. Valentine Nnebe of counsel), for appellant.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Kristin M. Helmers and Norman Corenthal of counsel), for respondents.

MARK C. DILLON, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, LEONARD B. AUSTIN, and ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.

[90 A.D.3d 588] In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice and lack of informed consent, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (O'Donoghue, J.), entered October 22, 2010, which granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to serve a timely notice of claim and denied her cross motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim and to deem the notice of claim served nunc pro tunc.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Service of a notice of claim within 90 days after accrual of the claim is a condition precedent to commencing an action against the defendant New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (hereinafter HHC) ( see McKinney's Uncons Laws of N.Y. § 7401[2] [L. 1969, ch. 1016, § 1 (§ 20[2] ), as amended by L. 1990, ch. 804, § 122]; General Municipal Law § 50–e[1][a]; Scantlebury v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 4 N.Y.3d 606, 609, 797 N.Y.S.2d 394, 830 N.E.2d 292; Argudo v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 81 A.D.3d 575, 576, 916 N.Y.S.2d 143; Wade v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 59 A.D.3d 528, 530, 874 N.Y.S.2d 171; Urena v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 35 A.D.3d 446, 446, 825 N.Y.S.2d 529).

The plaintiff was required to serve a timely notice of claim upon HHC in connection with her action against the defendants Queens Hospital Center and Kenneth A. Nakdimen ( see Bender v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 38 N.Y.2d 662, 665, 382 N.Y.S.2d 18, 345 N.E.2d 561; DeNaro v. Rosalia, 59 A.D.3d 584, 587, 873 N.Y.S.2d 697; W.E. Rest., Inc. v. Wilson, 38 A.D.3d 762, 833 N.Y.S.2d 126; DeRise v. Kreinik, 10 A.D.3d 381, 382, 780 N.Y.S.2d 773). The plaintiff served a notice of claim upon the Comptroller of the City of New York and upon Queens Hospital Center, a medical facility operated by HHC, within 90 days after her claim accrued. The City of New York and HHC are separate [90 A.D.3d 589] entities for purposes of a notice of claim ( see Scantlebury v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 4 N.Y.3d at 611, 797 N.Y.S.2d 394, 830 N.E.2d 292; Bender v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 38 N.Y.2d 662, 382 N.Y.S.2d 18, 345 N.E.2d 561). Accordingly, service upon the Comptroller of the City of New York was insufficient to constitute service upon HHC, the proper party to be served ( see

[934 N.Y.S.2d 445]

Scantlebury v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 4 N.Y.3d at 613, 797 N.Y.S.2d 394, 830...