Aguilar v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Aguilar v. City of New York

285 A.D.2d 619, 728 N.Y.S.2d 675, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7734

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

DecidedJuly 30, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 285 A.D.2d 619 (Aguilar v. City of New York) 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

Aguilar v. City of New York, 285 A.D.2d 619, 728 N.Y.S.2d 675, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7734 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.), dated July 24, 2000, which denied their motion pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (6) for leave to serve an amended notice of claim, and granted the separate cross motions of the defendant City of New York and the defendants New York City Board of Education and New York City School Construction Authority for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to serve an amended notice of claim to change the description of the location of the accident (see, Jones v City of New York, 277 AD2d 286; Ryan v County of Nassau, 271 AD2d 428; Nieves v City of New York, 262 AD2d 32). Moreover, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ separate cross motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them based on the plaintiffs’ failure to properly identify the location of the accident (see, Bayer v City of Long Beach, 275 AD2d 433). Ritter, J. P., Altman, McGinity, Smith and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.), dated July 24, 2000, which denied their motion pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (6) for leave to serve an amended notice of claim, and granted the separate cross motions of the defendant City of New York and the defendants New York City Board of Education and New York City School Construction Authority for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to serve an amended notice of claim to change the description of the location of the accident (see, Jones v City of New York, 277 AD2d 286; Ryan v County of Nassau, 271 AD2d 428; Nieves v City of New York, 262 AD2d 32). Moreover, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ separate cross motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them based on the plaintiffs’ failure to properly identify the location of the accident (see, Bayer v City of Long Beach, 275 AD2d 433). Ritter, J. P., Altman, McGinity, Smith and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

285 A.D.2d 619, 728 N.Y.S.2d 675, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7734, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aguilar-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack