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.
Marcie MAZZOLA, Respondent, v. Edward J. KELLY, et al., Defendants, Commack Union Free School District, Appellant.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Commack Union Free School District appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Seidell, J.), dated October 19, 2000, which denied its motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it and granted the plaintiff's cross motion pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e(5) for leave to file a late notice of claim.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the cross motion is denied, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellant, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.
The plaintiff was born on March 19, 1981. She commenced this action on March 17, 2000, against, among others, the appellant, Commack Union Free School District (hereinafter the District), to recover damages for injuries arising out of several incidents which occurred between the years 1992 through 1994, when she was an infant. The District moved to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it on the ground that the plaintiff never served it with a notice of claim. In response, the plaintiff, by notice of motion dated June 23, 2000, cross-moved, inter alia, for leave to serve a late notice of claim. By order dated October 19, 2000, the Supreme Court denied the District's motion and granted the plaintiff's cross motion. We reverse.
The plaintiff failed to make an application for leave to serve a late notice of claim within one year and 90 days of when her infancy ended. Accordingly, the Supreme Court lacked the power to extend her time to serve a late notice of claim or to deem a late notice of claim timely served nunc pro tunc (see, Pierson v. City of New York, 56 N.Y.2d 950, 954, 453 N.Y.S.2d 615, 439 N.E.2d 331; Noel v. Shahbaz, 274 A.D.2d 381, 382, 711 N.Y.S.2d 752; Jackson v. New York City Transit Auth., 274 A.D.2d 501, 712 N.Y.S.2d 377; Hey v. Town of Napoli, 265 A.D.2d 803, 695 N.Y.S.2d 643).
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: March 26, 2001
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)