Opinion
Argued May 6, 1999
June 21, 1999
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DiNoto, J.), dated April 2, 1998, which granted the plaintiff's motion for leave to reargue and, upon reargument, denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the cause of action asserted in the complaint to recover damages for pain and suffering.
Sciretta Venterina, LLP, Staten Island, N.Y. (Marilyn Venterina of counsel), for appellants.
Andrea Towsky, Garden City, N.Y. (Frank A. Andrea and Toby Susan DeSimone of counsel), for respondent.
SONDRA MILLER, J.P., GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, HOWARD MILLER, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly concluded that the time within which an action must be commenced under Public Authorities Law § 1276 Pub. Auth.(2) constitutes a period of limitation which may be tolled or extended pursuant to CPLR 210(a) ( Yonkers Contr. Co. v. Port Auth. Trans-Hudson Corp., 93 N.Y.2d 375 [May 11, 1999]; cf., Cohen v. Pearl Riv. Union Free School Dist., 51 N.Y.2d 256, 264; Mingone v. State of New York, 100 A.D.2d 897; Matter of Gelpi v. New York City Health Hosps. Corp., 90 A.D.2d 503, 504; Santaniello v. De Francisco, 74 Misc.2d 229, affd 44 A.D.2d 831; see also, Flemming v. Long Is. R. R., 72 N.Y.2d 998, 1000; but see, Cassandro v. Metropolitan Suburban Bus Auth., 178 Misc.2d 484 ).
In arguing to the contrary, the defendants rely on cases relating to the service of a notice of claim rather than to the commencement of an action ( see, Pelnick v. State of New York, 171 A.D.2d 734; Kaplan v. State of New York, 152 A.D.2d 417), or upon statutes in which the Legislature unequivocally made commencement within a specific period a condition to the State's consent to suit ( see, Unconsolidated Laws of New York, § 7107; Court of Claims Act § 8; see also, Yonkers Contr. Co. v. Port Auth. Trans-Hudson Corp., supra). The defendants' remaining contentions are without merit ( see, Daniel Perla Assoc. v. Ginsberg, 256 A.D.2d 303 [2d Dept., Dec. 7, 1998]).