
    Burhan Zayed, Respondent, v New York City Department of Design and Construction et al., Appellants.
    [66 NYS3d 124]
   Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mitchell J. Danziger, J.), entered December 28, 2015, which, among other things, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to comply with CPLR 217-a and the notice of claim requirements of General Municipal Law §§ 50-e (5) and 50-i (1), unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing the complaint.

Although plaintiff successfully sought leave to file a late notice of claim before expiration of the statute of limitations, and was granted a 30-day extension of time to do so, he did not avail himself of that opportunity and, by any calculation, the one-year-and-90-day statute of limitations then expired (see CPLR 217-a; General Municipal Law §§ 50-e [5]; 50-i [1]).

The motion court was not permitted to grant an extension after the statute of limitations had run since, to do so, would render meaningless the portion of General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) that expressly prohibits the court from doing so (Pierson v City of New York, 56 NY2d 950, 955 [1982]). CPLR 2004 cannot be used to extend the statute of limitations (Rybka v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 263 AD2d 403, 406 [1st Dept 1999]; CPLR 201; see also Pierson, 56 NY2d at 954).

Concur—Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Gesmer and Oing, JJ.  