Filed Date: 7/6/1992
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/31/2024
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is denied.
The plaintiffs motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim was not made until after the expiration of the applicable Statute of Limitations. Hence, the motion was untimely as a matter of law and, absent a finding of equitable estoppel, the Supreme Court lacked the authority to grant the motion (see, General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]; Pierson v City of New York, 56 NY2d 950; Matter of Adams v City of New York, 180 AD2d 629; Siahaan v City of New York, 123 AD2d 620). Contrary to the plaintiffs contention and the Supreme Court’s determination, the record is devoid of evidence suggesting that the third-party defendants engaged in any misleading conduct so as to support a finding of equitable estoppel in this case (see, Luka v New York City Tr. Auth., 100 AD2d 323, affd 63 NY2d 667; Hochberg v City of New York, 99 AD2d 1028, affd 63 NY2d 665; Matter of Rieara v City of New York Dept. of Parks & Recreation, 156 AD2d 206; Siahaan v City of New York, supra; Matter of Gross v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 122 AD2d 793). Accordingly, the court erred in granting the plaintiffs motion. Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, O’Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.