Racimor v. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

Background

Eveline Racimor sued the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, alleging that she suffered personal injuries because the Port Authority negligently maintained an escalator and related areas at the Oculus in Manhattan. The complaint alleged that she slipped and fell because of liquid on the floor. The opinion noted that the complaint contained inconsistent allegations about whether the incident occurred at the Oculus or at 3 World Trade Center, but the court assumed for purposes of the motion that the incident occurred at the Oculus because the Port Authority did not challenge the inconsistency.

Racimor served a notice of claim on the Port Authority on May 7, 2024, and filed the lawsuit on October 30, 2024. The original notice was signed by her attorney but was not sworn to by Racimor or on her behalf. Around March 2025, she gave the Port Authority an amended notice dated February 28, 2025. The amended notice was identical to the original except that Racimor’s attorney swore to it under penalty of perjury. The Port Authority moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), which concerns the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.

Legal framework

The Port Authority argued that the court lacked jurisdiction because Racimor had not satisfied conditions required for the Port Authority to consent to lawsuits involving state-law claims. Under sections 7107 and 7108 of the New York Unconsolidated Laws, a claimant must serve a notice of claim at least 60 days before filing suit, and the notice must include specified information and be sworn to by or on behalf of the claimant. The provisions also require that an action be filed within one year after the claim arises.

The court explained that New York’s highest court had held that the notice requirement is satisfied when the notice substantially complies with the statute and contains enough definite information to allow the Port Authority to investigate the claim and estimate its potential liability. The court treated the timing requirements as central, but concluded that the statute did not require dismissal whenever a notice containing the required information was not sworn.

Court’s analysis

The court found that Racimor’s original notice identified the claimant, the time and place of the incident, the nature of the claim, and the injuries or damages claimed. The only deficiency was that the notice was unsworn. The court concluded that this omission did not prevent the notice from serving its purpose. It also noted that the Port Authority did not argue that the lack of a sworn statement interfered with its investigation.

The court compared the case to a New Jersey decision involving an unsworn notice followed by a verified notice in a personal-injury case against the Port Authority. Although Racimor’s sworn notice was provided after she filed suit, rather than before filing, the court held that this difference did not matter because the original notice contained the relevant statutory information and had been served more than 60 days before the lawsuit. The court also concluded that earlier cases requiring strict compliance were not persuasive after a later New York Court of Appeals decision clarified the substantial-compliance standard.

Disposition

Judge John G. Koeltl denied the Port Authority’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court concluded that Racimor’s unsworn notice substantially complied with section 7108 and that the parties did not dispute her compliance with the other applicable requirements. The court directed the Port Authority to answer the complaint by July 18, 2025, and directed the parties to submit a Rule 26(f) report by July 31, 2025.