Acevedo v. City of New York Department of Transportation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Acevedo v. City of New York Department of Transportation

227 A.D.2d 245, 642 N.Y.S.2d 291, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5201

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 16, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 227 A.D.2d 245 (Acevedo v. City of New York Department of Transportation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Acevedo v. City of New York Department of Transportation, 227 A.D.2d 245, 642 N.Y.S.2d 291, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5201 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.), entered on or about February 8, 1995, which denied plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a late notice of claim against the City of New York nunc pro tunc, and granted defendant City’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint as against it for failure to comply with General Municipal Law §§ 50-e and 50-i, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

That defendant Department of Transportation failed to bring to plaintiff’s attention, after plaintiff served a notice of claim upon it, that the notice was improperly served, does not give rise to an' estoppel claim (Kroin v City of New York, 210 AD2d 95). We have considered plaintiff’s other contention and find it to be without merit. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Kupferman, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.), entered on or about February 8, 1995, which denied plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a late notice of claim against the City of New York nunc pro tunc, and granted defendant City’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint as against it for failure to comply with General Municipal Law §§ 50-e and 50-i, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

That defendant Department of Transportation failed to bring to plaintiff’s attention, after plaintiff served a notice of claim upon it, that the notice was improperly served, does not give rise to an' estoppel claim (Kroin v City of New York, 210 AD2d 95). We have considered plaintiff’s other contention and find it to be without merit. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Kupferman, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

227 A.D.2d 245, 642 N.Y.S.2d 291, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5201, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/acevedo-v-city-of-new-york-department-of-transportation-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack