Barchet v. New York City Transit Authority, 20 N.Y.2d 1 (1967)
When a plaintiff must obtain leave of court to file a late notice of claim against a public authority, the statute of limitations is tolled from the commencement of the proceeding seeking such leave until the order granting the relief takes effect.
Summary
Elizabeth Barchet sued the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) for injuries sustained due to alleged negligence. The NYCTA moved to dismiss because the action was brought after the one-year statute of limitations under Public Authorities Law § 1212. Barchet argued the statute was tolled while she sought leave to file a late notice of claim under General Municipal Law § 50-e(5). The Court of Appeals held that the statute of limitations was tolled during the period when Barchet was required to obtain leave of the court, reversing the Appellate Division’s dismissal and reinstating the Special Term’s order.
Facts
Elizabeth Barchet was injured on December 23, 1963, allegedly due to the NYCTA’s negligent operation of its transit lines.
Almost a year later, on December 18, 1964, Barchet sought leave of court to serve a late notice of claim, with a motion returnable on January 18, 1965, and submitted on January 22, 1965.
On February 15, 1965, an order was signed granting Barchet leave to file a late notice of claim, giving her ten days from February 19, 1965 (when the order appeared in the New York Law Journal) to file.
Barchet filed the late notice of claim on February 23, 1965, and commenced the action on March 22, 1965.
Procedural History
Barchet commenced an action against the NYCTA.
The NYCTA asserted the statute of limitations as a defense, arguing the action was time-barred.
Special Term granted Barchet’s motion to dismiss the NYCTA’s defense.
The Appellate Division reversed the Special Term’s order and dismissed the complaint.
The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the statute of limitations was tolled during the period in which the plaintiff was required to obtain leave of the court to bring her action, pursuant to CPLR 204(a)?
Holding
Yes, because the statute was tolled from the time the plaintiff commenced the proceeding to obtain leave of the court to file a late notice of claim until the order of Special Term granting that relief appeared in the New York Law Journal, the date upon which it was to take effect.
Court’s Reasoning
The court reasoned that CPLR 204(a) tolls the statute of limitations when the commencement of an action has been stayed by a court. While filing a notice of claim within 90 days is typically a condition precedent within the plaintiff’s control, Barchet couldn’t comply due to legally recognized reasons, necessitating court leave. Obtaining court leave was a prerequisite effectively prohibiting the action until consent was granted. The court distinguished this from simply alleging 30 days elapsed since serving the notice of claim; both prescribe procedures affecting prosecution.
The court rejected tolling from the 90th day’s passing, presuming Barchet’s disability prevented filing the notice and commencing the action. Once the disability ceased, obtaining court leave became the impediment. The court stated, “From the date when she commenced the proceeding for leave to file a late notice of claim, December 18, 1964, until the order granting the relief requested appeared in the New York Law Journal… the plaintiff was prohibited from commencing her action and, by virtue of the provisions of CPLR 204 (subd. [a]), the Statute of Limitations was tolled for that period.”
A contrary ruling would limit the one-year period to obtain leave, disadvantaging plaintiffs with legally recognized disabilities. The court distinguished Christian v. Village of Herkimer, emphasizing it involved a different question. The court emphasized that when the proceeding to file a late notice of claim was commenced on December 18, 1964, five days remained in which to commence the action. The order granting leave took effect February 19, 1965, so the Statute of Limitations then commenced to run again. The notice was filed on February 23, 1965, within the five-day period remaining. Once the notice was filed, the plaintiff was entitled to an additional 30 days in which to commence the action. The action was timely commenced on March 22, 1965.