Court Opinion

ID: 9874740
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 22:14:32.365157+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:46:52.234480
License: Public Domain

Dillion, J.R,
dissents, and votes to affirm the order, with the following memorandum: I respectfully dissent and vote to affirm the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint insofar as asserted against the New York City Housing Authority (hereinafter NYCHA).
As noted by my colleagues in the majority, General Municipal Law § 50-e (3) (b) requires that notices of claim be “properly addressed” to the intended municipal corporation. Further, General Municipal Law § 50-e (3) (a) requires that the notice of claim be “to the person designated by law as one to whom a summons in an action . . . may be delivered.” Here, the plaintiff’s notice of claim was addressed to a person that allegedly did not exist — the Comptroller of NYCHA — and therefore was not properly addressed and not delivered to a proper designated municipal agent. These errors are fatally significant, as they contributed to the circumstances where the notice of claim was not recorded in the NYCHA. service log and was instead forwarded to the Comptroller of the City of New York. Since the Office of the Comptroller of the City of New York is a separate jural entity, the notice of claim received and acknowledged by it cannot be imputed to the defendant, NYCHA (see Khela v City of New York, 91 AD3d 912, 914 [2012]; Singh v City of New York, 88 AD3d 864, 865 [2011]; Matter of Lyerly v City of New York, 283 AD2d 647, 648 [2001]; Matter of Hobgood v New York City Hous. Auth., 253 AD2d 555, 556 [1998]).
Since the plaintiff failed to properly address his notice of claim to the proper municipal designee as required by statute, *1030and the certified mail receipt card was signed by an employee of the Comptroller of the City of New York, the plaintiff failed to fulfill the purpose and intent of the statute of affording NYCHA an opportunity to investigate the claim (see generally Vallejo-Bayas v New York City Tr. Auth., 103 AD3d 881, 882 [2013]).
The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted NYCHA’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, and denied the plaintiff’s cross motion for an order deeming the notice of claim to have been properly served.