Case ID: ad3d_125/html/0496-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Nancy Loughlin, Appellant, v New York City Transit Authority et al., Respondents.
    [4 NYS3d 19]—
   Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael D. Stallman, J.), entered March 12, 2014, dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the judgment vacated, and the motion denied. Appeal from the underlying order, same court and Justice, entered December 26, 2013, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

Plaintiff alleges that on December 10, 2011 she sustained personal injuries while a passenger on a New York City Transit

Authority bus, when the bus suddenly stopped short, causing her to be thrown to the ground. Plaintiffs attorney’s correspondence to the Authority, which enclosed, inter alia, plaintiffs no-fault application and a narrative report from plaintiffs physician, together satisfied the form and contents requirements of a notice of claim, pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (2), and placed the Authority on notice that plaintiff intended to commence a personal injury action (see Losada v Liberty Lines Tr., 155 AD2d 337 [1st Dept 1989]). Unlike in Richardson v New York City Tr. Auth. (210 AD2d 38, 39 [1st Dept 1994]), relied upon by the motion court, here, plaintiff was represented by counsel at the time of the submission of her no-fault application and her attorney’s correspondence made it clear that plaintiff was not limiting her claim to no-fault benefits. The letters clearly informed the Authority that counsel had also been retained to represent plaintiff in a separate and distinct claim for “personal injuries.” The attorney’s letters and enclosures provided the Authority with sufficient information “of the place, time and nature of her accident in order to investigate, collect evidence and evaluate the merit of [the] claim” (Bennett v New York City Tr. Auth., 3 NY3d 745, 746 [2004] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Acosta, Saxe, Moskowitz and Clark, JJ. [Prior Case History: 42 Misc 3d 1204(A), 2013 NY Slip Op 52201(U).]