Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v MTA Bus Co. (2015 NY Slip Op 50033(U))

[*1]

Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v MTA Bus Co.

2015 NY Slip Op 50033(U) [46 Misc 3d 1210(A)]

Decided on January 16, 2015

Supreme Court, New York County

Stallman, J.

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on January 16, 2015

Supreme Court, New York County

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company a/s/o ABRAHAM CHECHIK, Petitioner,

against

MTA Bus Company, Respondent.

160704/2014

For petitioner:

Carman, Callahan & Ingham, LLP

By: Jami C. Amarasinghe, Esq.

266 Main St

Farmingdale, NY 11735

(516) 249-3450

For respondent:

Barry McTiernan & Moore LLC

By: John V. Wynne, Esq.

2 Rector St — 14th Fl

New York, NY 10006

(212) 313-3600

Michael D. Stallman, J.

The following papers, numbered 1-8, 10-13, were read on this petition for a late notice of claim

Petition; Notice of Petition; Affirmation; Exhibits A; B; RJI; Affidavit of Service	No(s).1-7
Affirmation in Opposition—Affidavit of Service	No(s).8
Reply Affirmation—Affidavit of Service	No(s).10
Supplement Affirmation in Support—Exhibit A—Affidavit of Service	No(s).11-13

Upon the foregoing papers, it is ADJUDGED that this petition for leave to serve a late notice of claim upon respondent MTA Bus Company is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed.

Because the MTA Bus Company is a subsidiary of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (see Rampersaud v Metropolitan Transp. Auth. of the State of NY, 73 AD3d 888 [2d Dept 2010]), a notice of claim is not required to be served upon the MTA Bus Company. (Public Authorities Law § 1276 [6]; Stampf v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 57 AD3d 222 [2d Dept 2008] [no requirement that a notice of claim be served upon LIRR, citing Public Authorities Law § 1276 (6)].)

Respondent's argument that the Uniform Notice of Claim Act enacted a notice of claim requirement for the MTA Bus Company is without merit. The Uniform Notice of Claim Act (L 2012, ch 500, as amended L 2013, ch 24) did not enact a notice of claim requirement that did not otherwise exist prior to its enactment. The legislative memorandum states, in relevant part:

(Continued . . .)

Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v MTA Bus Company, Index No. 160704/2014

"This bill is not intended to limit, alter, or eliminate or otherwise nullify existing provisions of law relating to the service of a notice of claim, but only as a means of providing an alternative method for satisfying the condition precedent to the commencement of an action or proceeding against a public corporation."

(NY Senate Mem, 2012 McKinney's Session Law of NY, at A586.)

Because a notice of claim is not required as a condition precedent to suit against the MTA Bus Company,^[FN1] General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) does not apply to respondent. Whether petitioner met the requisites for leave to serve a late notice of claim is denied as academic.

Dated:1/16/15/s/, J.S.C.

New York, New York

Footnotes

Footnote 1: The Court does not suggest that there are no condition precedents to suit against the MTA Bus Company. For example, Public Authorities Law § 1276 (1) requires that, in every action against the MTA Bus Company for personal injuries, the complaint must allege that a pre-suit demand was made upon the MTA Bus Company at least 30 days prior to commencement of suit against the MTA Bus Company, and that the MTA Bus Company "neglected or refused to make an adjustment or payment thereof." (See Andersen v Long Is. R.R., 59 NY2d 657 [1983].)