Wollins v. New York City Board of Education
| Decision Date | 03 June 2004 |
| Docket Number | 3586. |
| Citation | 2004 NY Slip Op 04421,777 N.Y.S.2d 637,8 A.D.3d 30 |
| Parties | SONDRA WOLLINS et al., Respondents, v. NEW YORK CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Plaintiff was injured in a slip and fall in a New York City school on January 11, 2001. A comprehensive accident report which described the circumstances of the accident was signed by the principal of the school on March 6, 2001.
Plaintiffs' notice of claim dated October 30, 2001, which defendant apparently received on November 2, 2001, was untimely, since it was not served within 90 days of the accrual of their cause of action (see General Municipal Law § 50-e [1] [a]). The report concerning her accident was improperly deemed by the motion court to constitute a timely notice of claim, since that report in no way indicated or alleged the presence of a dangerous condition or any negligence on the part of defendant regarding such a condition. Accordingly, the municipal defendant did not have timely actual notice of the facts constituting the claim by virtue of such a report (see Olivera v City of New York, 270 AD2d 5, 6 [2000]).
Although plaintiffs served their complaint within the one year and 90 days time limit of General Municipal Law § 50-i (1) (c), their untimely notice of claim, served without seeking leave of the court, was a nullity, requiring dismissal of the complaint (see General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]; De La Cruz v City of New York, 221 AD2d 168, 169 [1995]).
Defendant's failure to reject or object to untimely service of the notice of claim did not amount to a waiver of its right to assert as a defense the untimeliness of plaintiffs' notice of claim; a municipal authority is under no obligation to notify a plaintiff that his notice of claim is not timely (Davis v City of New York, 250 AD2d 368, 370 [1998]). Nor did the City's participation in discovery proceedings have any effect on the clear statutory mandate of General Municipal Law § 50-e (5), which limits...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rivera v. City of N.Y.
...is served beyond the required ninety-day period, without leave of court, it is deemed a nullity ( Wollins v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 8 A.D.3d 30, 31, 777 N.Y.S.2d 637 [1st Dept 2004] ; De La Cruz v. City of New York, 221 A.D.2d 168, 169, 633 N.Y.S.2d 145 [1st Dept 1995] ). GML § 50–e(2)......
-
Bielski v. Green
...defense, the plaintiffs' failure to comply with the statutory notice of claim requirement"); Wollins v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 8 A.D.3d 30, 30, 777 N.Y.S.2d 637 (1st Dep't 2004) ("a authority is under no obligation to notify a plaintiff that his notice of claim is not timely"). Further......
-
Middleton–coulibaly v. Danco Inc.
...though, since a late notice of claim without leave of court is no notice at all ( see Wollins v. N.Y. City Bd. Of Educ., 8 A.D.3d 30, 31, 777 N.Y.S.2d 637, 637–638, [1st Dept.2004] ), a plaintiff must not be allowed to circumvent statutory requirements by claiming an exception to the law ba......
-
Castro v. City of N.Y.
...is served beyond the required ninety-day period, without leave of court, it is deemed a nullity (Wollins v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 8 A.D.3d 30, 31, 777 N.Y.S.2d 637 [1st Dept.2004] ; De La Cruz v. City of New York, 221 A.D.2d 168, 169, 633 N.Y.S.2d 145 [1st Dept.1995] ).GML § 50–e(2), ......