McGarty v. City of New York
| Decision Date | 16 October 2007 |
| Docket Number | 1725. |
| Parties | WILLIAM D. McGARTY, Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Executive Order (Pataki) No. 113.7 (9 NYCRR 5.113.7), temporarily suspending, inter alia, local laws and ordinances establishing limitations of time for the filing or service of, inter alia, any notice or process "that the courts lack authority to extend through the exercise of discretion," does not apply to notices of claim required as a condition precedent to suit against defendant under General Municipal Law § 50-i. As the motion court explained, the Executive Order does not apply because "the statutory framework has built into it a mechanism by which a court can exercise its discretion" to extend the 90-day period for filing a notice of claim (General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]; cf. CB Richard Ellis v JLC Holdings, 306 AD2d 870 [2003]). Plaintiff's service of a late notice of claim without court leave 91 days after accrual of his claim was a nullity (Wollins v New York City Bd. of Educ., 8 AD3d 30, 31 [2004]), and his failure to seek a court order excusing such lateness within one year and 90 days after accrual of his claim requires dismissal of the action (see id., citing, inter alia, Hochberg v City of New York, 99 AD2d 1028 [1984], affd 63 NY2d 665 [1984]). We have considered plaintiff's other contentions and find them unavailing.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Plaza v. N.Y. Health & Hospitals Corp.
...have repeatedly held that service of a late notice of claim without leave of court is a nullity ( see e.g. McGarty v. City of New York, 44 A.D.3d 447, 448, 843 N.Y.S.2d 287 [2007];Croce v. City of New York, 69 A.D.3d 488, 893 N.Y.S.2d 48 [2010] ). Moreover, the failure to seek a court order......
-
Dodson v. Bd. of Educ. of the Valley Stream Union Free Sch. Dist.
...within one year and 90 days after the date of the accident requires dismissal of the action” (citing McGarty v. City of N.Y., 44 A.D.3d 447, 448, 843 N.Y.S.2d 287 (1st Dep't 2007) ); N.Y. Gen. Mun. Law §§ 50–e(5), 50–i(1)(c) ). Accordingly, Plaintiff's state law claims are DISMISSED WITH PR......
-
Raus v. Town of Southampton, CV 13-7056
...where evidence conclusively establishes that the notice was mailed ninety-one days after the accident); McGarty v. City of New York, 44 A.D.3d 447, 843 N.Y.S.2d 287 (1st Dept. 2007) (failure to seek court approval to excuse a late notice of claim requires dismissal). Since the notice of cla......
-
People ex rel. Allen v. Warden of George Motcham Det. Ctr.
...Governor Pataki as the result of the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001]; see also McGarty v. City of New York, 44 A.D.3d 447, 843 N.Y.S.2d 287 [First Dept.2007] [where Governor Pataki's same executive order issued as the result of the terrorist attacks was hel......