and jurisdictional. The failure to satisfy this condition will result in withdrawal of defendant’s consent to suit and compels the dismissal of the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.” Lyons v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, 228 A.D.2d 250, 251, 643 N.Y.S.2d 571 (1996) (citing Luciano v. Fanberg Realty, 102 A.D.2d 94, 475 N.Y.S.2d 854 (1984); Giannone v. Port Authority, 127 A.D.2d 818, 511 N.Y.S.2d 940 (1987)); see also Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, 137 A.D.2d 795, 525 N.Y.S.2d 342 (2d Dep’t 1988) (“Failure to satisfy this condition results in a withdrawal of consent and compels the dismissal of the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”); Giannone v. Port Auth., 127 A.D.2d 818, 511 N.Y.S.2d 940 (2d Dep’t 1987) (<HOLDING>). Kyne, in her Argument in Opposition, argues
holding that where an action was commenced less than 60 days after a notice of claim was served on the port authority the action must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction holding a decision denying a motion to dismiss an action for lack of personal and subject matter jurisdiction is not appealable holding that district court appropriately dismissed suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction when the case was moot holding that there was no federal subject matter jurisdiction under the private cause of action provision of the act holding that the case must be dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction where notice of appeal was untimely