SAPINI v. FERRARA (2025)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard A. Tsai, J.), entered on or about September 6, 2024, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted the motion of Metro–North Commuter Railroad to dismiss the complaint as against it and denied plaintiff's cross-motion for leave to amend the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying plaintiff's cross-motion for leave to amend the complaint to assert his compliance with the 30–day presentment of claim requirement under Public Authorities Law § 1276(1), a condition precedent to a personal injury suit against a public authority (see Fleming v. Long Is. R.R., 72 N.Y.2d 998, 999, 534 N.Y.S.2d 371, 530 N.E.2d 1291 [1988]).  The statute requires that a complaint “allege that at least 30 days have elapsed since the presentation of a demand for settlement of the claim to the authority, which the authority has neglected or refused” (Fleming, 72 N.Y.2d at 999, 534 N.Y.S.2d 371, 530 N.E.2d 1291).  Presentation of the demand “is designed to afford the public authority an opportunity, prior to incurring the expenses of litigation, to evaluate the claim and to determine whether to attempt an adjustment or to pay the claim” (Andersen v. Long Is. R.R., 59 N.Y.2d 657, 661, 463 N.Y.S.2d 407, 450 N.E.2d 213 [1983]).  As an MTA subsidiary, Metro–North is subject to Public Authorities Law § 1276(1) (see Matter of Essien, 77 A.D.3d 237, 238, 907 N.Y.S.2d 474 [1st Dept. 2010]).

Here, plaintiff commenced this action by complaint dated January 30, 2024, alleging that he sustained injuries when a utility vehicle owned by defendants Metropolitan Transportation Authority and Metro–North and operated by defendant Anthony F. Ferrara collided with a motor vehicle operated by plaintiff.  By letter dated February 20, 2024, a claims administrator for Metro–North informed plaintiff's law firm that she was handling this matter and requested medical information and documents.  Thus, the parties’ settlement discussion and document exchanges occurred after plaintiff commenced this action, and there is no evidence that plaintiff complied with the statute prior to filing the complaint (see Russian Samovar, Inc. v. Transit Worker's Union of Am., 45 A.D.3d 499, 500, 847 N.Y.S.2d 164 [1st Dept. 2007]; Jacobs v. Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 180 A.D.3d 657, 658–659, 115 N.Y.S.3d 702 [2d Dept. 2020]).

Supreme Court also properly dismissed the complaint as against Metro–North.  Failure to comply with provisions requiring notice and presentment of claims prior to commencing an action requires dismissal (see e.g. Davidson v. Bronx Mun. Hosp., 64 N.Y.2d 59, 62, 484 N.Y.S.2d 533, 473 N.E.2d 761 [1984]).