Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Dorinda LAWRENCE, et al., Appellants, v. LIBERTY LINES TRANSIT, INC., Respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.), dated December 19, 2001, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff Dorinda Lawrence was injured in a bus accident on August 16, 1999. As the plaintiffs now concede, they had an obligation to serve a notice of claim on the County of Westchester within 90 days after the accident and prior to the commencement of this action (see General Municipal Law §§ 50-b [1]; 50-e[1][b]; 50-e[1][a]; Coleman v. Westchester St. Transp. Co., 57 N.Y.2d 734, 454 N.Y.S.2d 978, 440 N.E.2d 1324; Kossifos v. Liberty Lines Tr., 277 A.D.2d 205, 715 N.Y.S.2d 868; Delisca v. Liberty Lines Tr., 272 A.D.2d 291, 707 N.Y.S.2d 886; Singer v. Liberty Lines, 183 A.D.2d 820, 584 N.Y.S.2d 111; McSpedon v. Liberty Lines, 109 A.D.2d 731, 486 N.Y.S.2d 49; James v. Liberty Lines, 97 A.D.2d 749, 468 N.Y.S.2d 380).
Apparently, the plaintiffs' attorney mailed an application for no-fault benefits to a claims administrator for the defendant Liberty Lines Transit, Inc., within 90 days after the accident. However, there is no proof that this document was received within that 90-day period by a “proper person” (General Municipal Law §§ 50-e[3][a]; 50-e[3][c]; cf. Tacinelli v. Liberty Lines, 123 A.D.2d 756, 507 N.Y.S.2d 230). Moreover, the no-fault application did not constitute the equivalent of a notice of claim (see Zydyk v. New York City Tr. Auth., 151 A.D.2d 745, 542 N.Y.S.2d 768; cf. Smith v. Scott, 294 A.D.2d 11, 740 N.Y.S.2d 425). Thus, the receipt of the application for no-fault benefits by an agent of the defendant's claims administrator does not satisfy the statutory requirement of service of a notice of claim on the County (see Kossifos v. Liberty Lines Tr., supra; Delisca v. Liberty Lines Tr., supra; cf. Santiago v. Liberty Lines Tr., 259 A.D.2d 362, 687 N.Y.S.2d 57; Gallagher v. Liberty Lines, 211 A.D.2d 440, 621 N.Y.S.2d 55; Miller v. Liberty Lines., 208 A.D.2d 454, 617 N.Y.S.2d 471; Losada v. Liberty Lines Tr., 155 A.D.2d 337, 547 N.Y.S.2d 307).
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: November 12, 2002
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)