What did the court decide?

The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's dismissal of the case because the plaintiff did not file the required notice of claim before suing the District Attorney's Office and prosecutors.

Who is affected by this decision?

Plaintiff Feifei Gu is affected because her complaint was dismissed and her motions to vacate that dismissal and for sanctions were denied; the defendants (the District Attorney's Office and two prosecutors) prevailed.

Why was the case dismissed?

Because the law requires a timely notice of claim for tort suits against municipal entities and employees, and the record showed no such notice was served or alleged, making the defect jurisdictional.

Can this decision be appealed further?

The Appellate Division affirmed; the next step would be an application for leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals, subject to that court's discretionary review.

Feifei Gu v. Henry

Docket Index No. 101237/22|Appeal No. 6393|Case No. 2024-03069|

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

CivilAffirmed

Filed: Apr 16, 2026 · 2 weeks ago
Jurisdiction: New York
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Type: Opinion
Case type: Civil
Disposition: Affirmed
Citation: 2026 NY Slip Op 02332
Docket numbers: Index No101237/22Appeal No6393Case No2024-03069

Appeal from Supreme Court order denying plaintiff's motions to vacate a dismissal for lack of timely notice of claim and for sanctions, and accepting reargument but adhering to the prior dismissal.

Summary

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed Supreme Court's April 24, 2024 order denying Feifei Gu's motions to vacate a prior July 28, 2023 dismissal and for sanctions, while noting the court had effectively granted leave to reargue and then adhered to its prior dismissal. The court found the complaint was properly dismissed because Gu failed to file the mandatory notice of claim under General Municipal Law §§ 50-e and 50-i before suing the District Attorney's Office and two prosecutors, a defect that deprives the court of jurisdiction. The court also rejected Gu's fraud and misconduct claims as conclusory and unsupported.

Issues Decided

Whether the complaint was properly dismissed for failure to file a timely notice of claim under General Municipal Law §§ 50-e and 50-i.
Whether Supreme Court properly considered the plaintiff's motion for leave to reargue and adhered to its prior order dismissing the complaint.
Whether the plaintiff's request for sanctions based on alleged fraud and misconduct was properly denied as conclusory and unsupported.

Court's Reasoning

The court held dismissal was required because the plaintiff did not satisfy the statutory notice-of-claim prerequisites applicable to tort claims against municipal entities and their employees, and there is no record evidence that any notice of claim was served or pled. Because those statutory requirements are jurisdictional, failing to comply deprives the court of authority to hear the claim. The court also found the record showed defendants served their motion, and the plaintiff participated in opposition and argument, so reargument was properly considered; the sanctions motion failed because the allegations were conclusory and unsupported by record evidence.

Authorities Cited

General Municipal Law §§ 50-e and 50-i
Davidson v Bronx Municipal Hospital64 NY2d 59 (1984)
Slemish Corp. S.A. v Morgenthau192 AD3d 465 (1st Dept 2021)
High Definition MRI, P.C. v Mapfre Ins. Co. of N.Y.148 AD3d 470 (1st Dept 2017)

Parties

Plaintiff: Feifei Gu
Appellant: Feifei Gu
Defendant: Javon Henry
Respondent: Alvin L. Bragg, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Victor Olds of counsel)
Judge: Manzanet-Daniels, J.P.
Judge: Higgitt, J.
Judge: Rosado, J.
Judge: O'neill Levy, J.
Judge: Chan, J.

Key Dates

Decision date: 2026-04-16
Order affirmed entered: 2024-04-24
Prior dismissal order: 2023-07-28

What You Should Do Next

1
Consider appeal to New York Court of Appeals
If the plaintiff wants to continue, she may seek leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, which is discretionary and requires filing within the court's deadline; consult counsel or review Court of Appeals rules for timing.
2
Evaluate compliance with notice-of-claim requirements
If the underlying claim has merit, determine whether any statutory exceptions or tolling might apply or whether refiling with proper notice is possible; speak with an attorney about potential remedies.
3
Accept judgment and close file
If no further appeal is pursued, the plaintiff should accept the affirmed dismissal and, if applicable, take any administrative steps required to conclude the matter and preserve records.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide?: The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's dismissal of the case because the plaintiff did not file the required notice of claim before suing the District Attorney's Office and prosecutors.
Who is affected by this decision?: Plaintiff Feifei Gu is affected because her complaint was dismissed and her motions to vacate that dismissal and for sanctions were denied; the defendants (the District Attorney's Office and two prosecutors) prevailed.
Why was the case dismissed?: Because the law requires a timely notice of claim for tort suits against municipal entities and employees, and the record showed no such notice was served or alleged, making the defect jurisdictional.
Can this decision be appealed further?: The Appellate Division affirmed; the next step would be an application for leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals, subject to that court's discretionary review.

The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.

Full Filing Text

Feifei Gu v Henry - 2026 NY Slip Op 02332

Feifei Gu v Henry

2026 NY Slip Op 02332

April 16, 2026

Appellate Division, First Department

Feifei Gu, Plaintiff-Appellant,

Javon Henry, et al., Defendants-Respondents.

Decided and Entered: April 16, 2026

Index No. 101237/22|Appeal No. 6393|Case No. 2024-03069|

Before: Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Higgitt, Rosado, O'neill Levy, Chan, JJ.

Feifei Gu, appellant pro se.

Alvin L. Bragg, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Victor Olds of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Dakota D. Ramseur, J.), entered on or about April 24, 2024, which denied plaintiff's motions to vacate a prior order, same court (Mary V. Rosado, J.), entered on or about July 28, 2023, dismissing the complaint for failure to file a timely notice of claim, and for sanctions, and which, in effect, granted plaintiff's motion for leave to reargue her opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint, and upon reargument, adhered to its prior determination, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Supreme Court effectively granted plaintiff's motion for leave to reargue when it considered the merits of the motion, and thus, it is reviewable on appeal (
see High Definition MRI, P.C. v Mapfre Ins. Co. of N.Y.
, 148 AD3d 470, 471 [1st Dept 2017]). Upon reargument, the court properly adhered to its prior order granting defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. Plaintiff's contention that defendants failed to serve their motion to dismiss is contradicted by the record, which includes counsel's affirmation of service by certified mail, plaintiff's submission of opposition to the motion, and her participation in oral argument on the motion.

Supreme Court also properly denied plaintiff's motion to vacate the July 28, 2023 order dismissing the complaint for failure to file a timely notice of claim. The record shows that plaintiff did not comply with the notice-of-claim requirements applicable to tort claims under General Municipal Law §§ 50-e and 50-i prior to commencing this action against the District Attorney's Office and two of its prosecutors (
see

Slemish Corp. S.A. v Morgenthau
, 192 AD3d 465, 468 [1st Dept 2021],
lv denied
37 NY3d 909 [2021]). There is no evidence that defendants were ever served with a notice of claim, nor did plaintiff plead any such in the complaint. Because failure to satisfy these statutory prerequisites is a jurisdictional defect, dismissal was required (
see Davidson v Bronx Mun. Hosp.
, 64 NY2d 59, 62 [1984]).

Furthermore, the court providently denied plaintiff's motion for sanctions as her allegations of fraud and misconduct are conclusory and unsupported by the record.

We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: April 16, 2026