Viruet v. City of New York

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals held that a notice of claim against the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation may be served on the New York City Corporation Counsel under General Municipal Law § 50-e(3)(a). The court concluded that this service method is incorporated into the HHC Act and affirmed the Appellate Division's order, declining to follow contrary precedent.

Holdings

1. Service of a notice of claim on HHC may be effected by serving the New York City Corporation Counsel, because General Municipal Law § 50-e(3)(a) permits service on an attorney regularly engaged in representing the public corporation and that provision applies to HHC through McKinney's Unconsolidated Laws of New York § 7401(2).
2. General Municipal Law § 50-e(3)(a) is not inconsistent with McKinney's Unconsolidated Laws of New York § 7401(2), because it provides an alternative means of effecting service rather than displacing the HHC Act's designated officer-or-director recipient. Consequently, the HHC Act's override provision does not apply.

Questions Presented

1. Whether General Municipal Law § 50-e(3)(a), incorporated into the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation Act by McKinney's Unconsolidated Laws of New York § 7401(2), permits service of a notice of claim against HHC on the Corporation Counsel.
2. Whether the service provision in General Municipal Law § 50-e(3)(a) conflicts with the HHC Act's provision referring to service on a director or officer of HHC, such that the HHC Act's override provision applies.

Disposition

affirmed