Court Opinion

ID: 9916538
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-10 01:09:30.026592+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:33.652491
License: Public Domain

Cunas v Adams Eur. Contr.
               2023 NY Slip Op 34586(U)
                    December 21, 2023
             Supreme Court, Kings County
        Docket Number: Index No. 529047/2022
                  Judge: Devin P. Cohen
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
 Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
 State and local government sources, including the New
  York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
 This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
                       publication.
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/05/2024 03:43 PM                                                                      INDEX NO. 529047/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 55                                                                                   RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2024

            Supreme Court of the State of New York                       Index Number                         529047/2022
            County of Kings                                              Seqs.001,002

                           Part LLl                                                 DECISION/ORDER
            FRANKLIN DAQUILEMA CUNAS,                                   Recitation, as required by CPLR §2219 (a), of the papers
                                                                        considered in the review of this Motion

                                                   Plaintiff,                             Papers Numbered
                                                                        Notice of Motion and Affidavits Annexed.... 1-2
                                                                        Order to Show Cause and Affidavits Annexed. _
                           against                                      Answering Affidavits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..2::1..
                                                                        Replying Affidavits ...................... __J_
                                                                        Exhibits ............................... _
            ADAMS EUROPEAN CONTRACTING AND NEW YORK                     Other ................................. .
            CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY,

                                                 Defendants.

                  Upon the foregoing papers, defendant New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA)'s

           motion to dismiss (Seq. 001) and plaintiff's cross-motion to serve a late notice of claim or deem

           the notice of claim served nunc pro tune (Seq. 002) are decided as follows:

           Procedural History and Factual Background

                  Plaintiff commenced this action to recover for damages he claims that he sustained on

           June 2, 2022 when he fell down a flight of steps while painting. On June 23, 2023, plaintiff

           prepared a notice of claim which named NYCHA, but bore the address of the Office of the

           Comptroller: 1 Centre Street, New York, NY. NYCHA is a public authority with its own

           address for service of process: 90 Church Street, New York, NY. Plaintiff hired a process server

           to deliver the notice of claim to NYCHA at the incorrect address. On June 28, 2023, the process

           server provided an affidavit of service indicating that the notice of claim was served at 1 Centre

           Street. In his affidavit, the process server claimed that a clerk, Lisa Green, "reviewed the Notice

           of Claim against NYCHA and stamped it" (Eric Goldklank Aff. at ,r 6-7).

                                                                I

                                                         1 of 4
[* 1]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/05/2024 03:43 PM                                                      INDEX NO. 529047/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 55                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2024

                  Plaintiff then served the summons and complaint on all defendants on October 6, 2022.

           Notably, NYCHA's address on the summons and complaint remained incorrect, again bearing

           the address of the Office of New York City Comptroller. However, the affidavit of service

           provided by the process server who delivered the summons and complaint shows that the

           pleadings were delivered to 90 Church Street, and therefore properly served. The notice of claim

           was not attached to the summons and complaint. After receiving the summons and complaint,

           NYCHA filed an answer on October 18, 2022. NYCHA asserted numerous defenses, including

           that the plaintiff failed to satisfy the statutory predicate of serving a notice of claim prior to

           commencing an action against a public authority. NYCHA then participated in preliminary and

           compliance conferences before making this motion on September 12, 2023.

           Analysis

                   Serving a notice of claim on a public authority within 90 days of an accident is a statutory

           prerequisite to commencing an action against that public authority (Public Authorities Law,§

           1200 et seq.; General Municipal Law§ 50-e). A public authority does not waive its right to a

           notice of claim by participating in litigation, and is also not required to affirmatively inform

           plaintiff about defects with or absence of the notice of claim (Dorce v United Rentals N Am.,

           Inc., 78 AD3d 1110, 1110 [2d Dept 2010]). Moreover, a public authority is only estopped from

           seeking dismissal based on the failure to serve a notice of claim "where a governmental

           subdivision acts or comports itself wrongfully or negligently, inducing reliance by a party who is

           entitled to rely and who changes his position to his detriment or prejudice" (Bender v New York

            City Health & Hosps. Corp., 38 NY2d 662 [1976]).

                                                               2

                                                           2 of 4
[* 2]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/05/2024 03:43 PM                                                   INDEX NO. 529047/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 55                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2024

                  The court is mindful of the Second Department's holding in Ramos v New York City

           Housing Authority that the notice requirement is to be construed liberally for the sake of not

           "{frustrating] the rights of individuals with legitimate claims" (162 AD3d 884, 885 [2d Dept

           2018]). Ordinarily the court has broad discretion to grant permission to file a late notice of

           claim. Here, however, the plaintiff did not serve the notice of claim on NYCHA in the first

           instance and did not attach it to the summons and complaint. The first time plaintiff provided a

           copy of the notice of claim to NYCHA was as an exhibit to the instant cross-motion, which was

           made after the statute of limitations had run. The plaintiffs application is beyond the court's

           discretion as it was made after the one year and 90-day statute oflimitations had accrued (Ceely

           v New York City Health and Hospitals Corp., 162 AD2d 492 [2d Dept 1990]). Even if the court

           were within its discretion, plaintiff sending the notice of claim to the wrong address is a law

           office failure which does not constitute a "reasonable excuse" for failure to serve a notice of

           claim (see Baglivi v Town ofSouthold, 301 AD2d 597 [2d Dept 2003]). Furthermore, NYCHA

           did not have actual notice of the claim within 90 days, and the plaintiffs summons and

           complaint was not served until almost 50 days past the deadline for actual notice (cf Ramos, 162

           AD3d at 884 [where two weeks was within the meaning of "a reasonable time thereafter"]).

           Plaintiff's request to file a late notice of claim is therefore denied (see Destine v City ofNew

            York, 111 AD3d 629 [2d Dept 2013]).

                   Plaintiff also requests that the court deem the notice of claim served nunc pro tune.

           Plaintiff does not claim, and the record does not indicate, that the notice of claim was annexed to

           the summons and complaints or was otherwise ever served on NYCHA until it was attached to

            plaintiffs instant cross-motion. Because it was never served, the notice of claim cannot,

            therefore, be deemed served nunc pro tune.

                                                             3

                                                         3 of 4
[* 3]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/05/2024 03:43 PM                                                 INDEX NO. 529047/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 55                                                                    RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2024

           Conclusion

                  Plaintiffs cross-motion to serve a late notice of claim or to deem the notice of claim

           served nunc pro tune (Seq. 002) is denied.

                  DefendantNYCHA's motion to dismiss (Seq. 001) is granted only as to defendant

           NYCHA.

                  This constitutes the decision and order of the court.

             December 21. 2023
           DATE                                         ~----   Justice of the Supreme Court

                                                            4

                                                         4 of 4
[* 4]