| St. Hilaire v New York City Hous. Auth. |
| 2023 NY Slip Op 02346 [216 AD3d 695] |
| May 3, 2023 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| Isidore Bradley St. Hilaire, Appellant, v New York City Housing Authority, Respondent. |
Beth Schlossman (The Feinsilver Law Group, P.C., Brooklyn, NY [H. Jonathan Rubinstein and David Feinsilver], of counsel), for appellant.
Lester Schwab Katz & Dwyer, LLP, New York, NY (John Sandercock of counsel), for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Loren Baily-Schiffman, J.), dated August 10, 2020. The order granted the defendant's motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The defendant, New York City Housing Authority (hereinafter NYCHA), moved pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff failed to serve a timely notice of claim. The Supreme Court granted NYCHA's motion, and the plaintiff appeals.
"Service of a notice of claim . . . is a condition precedent to a lawsuit against a municipal corporation" (Davidson v Bronx Mun. Hosp., 64 NY2d 59, 61 [1984]; see Public Housing Law § 157 [2]; Torres v New York City Hous. Auth., 199 AD3d 852, 853-854 [2021]).
Before commencing this action, the plaintiff commenced a proceeding pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (6) for leave to amend a notice of claim served on NYCHA or, in the alternative, pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) for leave to serve a late notice of claim on NYCHA. In light of our determination on a related appeal in that proceeding (see Matter of St. Hilaire v New York City Hous. Auth., 216 AD3d 645 [2023] [decided herewith]) affirming so much of an order dated August 10, 2020, as, upon reargument, adhered to a prior determination in an order dated January 23, 2020, denying the petition in that proceeding, the plaintiff failed to serve a timely notice of claim on NYCHA.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted NYCHA's motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint (see Roman v New York City Hous. Auth., 212 AD3d 856, 857 [2023]; Matter of White v New York City Hous. Auth., 38 AD3d 675, 676 [2007]). Duffy, J.P., Christopher, Zayas and Wan, JJ., concur.