Baez v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp., 8 N.Y.3d 533 (2007)
Service of a notice of claim against the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (HHC) may be properly effected by serving the New York City Corporation Counsel.
Summary
This case addresses the proper method for serving a notice of claim against the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (HHC). The plaintiff sought damages for dental malpractice and served the notice of claim on the New York City Law Department and the Comptroller, but not on an officer or director of HHC. The Court of Appeals held that serving the Corporation Counsel constitutes proper service on HHC because General Municipal Law § 50-e(3)(a) allows service on an attorney regularly engaged in representing the public corporation, and the Corporation Counsel fulfills this role for HHC. The Court emphasized the legislative intent behind the amendments to § 50-e to create uniform notice of claim provisions.
Facts
Plaintiff sought damages for alleged dental malpractice by HHC and an HHC doctor at the Segundo Ruiz Belvis Neighborhood Family Care Clinic in 1993-1994.
In October 1994, plaintiff served a notice of claim directed to the City of New York, HHC, the Belvis Clinic, and several doctors on the New York City Law Department and the New York City Comptroller.
Plaintiff never served the notice of claim on an officer or director of HHC.
The Comptroller noticed plaintiff to appear for a General Municipal Law § 50-h hearing.
Procedural History
In July 1997, after the summons and complaint were served, the defendants moved to dismiss the action because the plaintiff failed to serve the notice of claim on an officer or director of HHC, as required by McKinney’s Unconsolidated Laws of NY § 7401(2).
Supreme Court denied the motion, holding that General Municipal Law § 50-e(3)(a) provides the method of service and authorizes service on the Corporation Counsel.
The Appellate Division affirmed, concluding that the general provisions of General Municipal Law § 50-e(3)(a) override the specific requirements of McKinney’s Unconsolidated Laws of NY § 7401(2).
The Appellate Division certified the question of whether it correctly affirmed the Supreme Court to the Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether service of a notice of claim on the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (HHC) may be properly effected by serving the New York City Corporation Counsel, or whether service must be made on an officer or director of HHC as specified in McKinney’s Unconsolidated Laws of NY § 7401(2)?
Holding
Yes, because the notice of claim service provisions of General Municipal Law § 50-e(3)(a) are incorporated into the HHC Act, and therefore service on the Corporation Counsel constitutes proper service of the notice of claim.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reasoned that General Municipal Law § 50-e(3)(a) allows service on a public corporation by delivering the notice to the person designated by law to receive service (an HHC director or officer, per McKinney’s Unconsolidated Laws of NY § 7401(2)) or to an attorney regularly engaged in representing the public corporation.
The Court noted that § 50-e was enacted to create a uniform system for tort claims against public corporations. Although not initially included in the HHC Act, a 1973 amendment incorporated § 50-e into the HHC Act.
A 1976 amendment to § 50-e allowed service on an attorney regularly engaged in representing the public authority. The legislative history confirms this intent. As the Governor’s Memorandum indicates, the bill would “permit service of the notice of claim upon a public corporation by delivery of the notice to an attorney regularly engaged in representing such public corporation.” (Governor’s Mem, Bill Jacket, L 1976, ch 745).
The court addressed concerns raised by New York City’s Mayor at the time, who protested that serving the Corporation Counsel would place an unreasonable burden on that office.
The Court found no inconsistency between § 50-e(3)(a) and § 7401(2), as service on the Corporation Counsel is an alternative means of effecting service on HHC; therefore, the override provision of § 7405 does not apply.
The court explicitly stated that, “To the extent that Robles v City of New York (251 AD2d 485, lv granted 93 NY2d 802, appeal withdrawn 94 NY2d 783) and Altabe v City of New York (264 AD2d 373) hold that service on HHC may be effected only through service on an officer or director, they are not to be followed.”