Beltran v. Town of Oyster Bay

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Beltran v. Town of Oyster Bay

279 A.D.2d 544, 719 N.Y.S.2d 285, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 560

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

DecidedJanuary 22, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 279 A.D.2d 544 (Beltran v. Town of Oyster Bay) 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

Beltran v. Town of Oyster Bay, 279 A.D.2d 544, 719 N.Y.S.2d 285, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 560 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bucaria, J.), dated March 13, 2000, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

General Municipal Law § 50-e (2) provides, inter alia, that a notice of claim shall set forth “the time when, the place where and the manner in which the claim arose.” The requirement that a notice of claim set forth the place where the claim arose is met when the notice describes the location with sufficient particularity to enable the defendant to locate the alleged defect and to conduct a meaningful investigation so as to assess the merits of the claim before conditions change and memories fade (see, Thomas v Town of Oyster Bay, 190 AD2d 731; Miles v City of New York, 173 AD2d 298, 299; Caselli v City of New York, 105 AD2d 251). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the plaintiffs notice of claim complied with General Municipal Law § 50-e (2). Ritter, J. P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Feuerstein, 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, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bucaria, J.), dated March 13, 2000, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

General Municipal Law § 50-e (2) provides, inter alia, that a notice of claim shall set forth “the time when, the place where and the manner in which the claim arose.” The requirement that a notice of claim set forth the place where the claim arose is met when the notice describes the location with sufficient particularity to enable the defendant to locate the alleged defect and to conduct a meaningful investigation so as to assess the merits of the claim before conditions change and memories fade (see, Thomas v Town of Oyster Bay, 190 AD2d 731; Miles v City of New York, 173 AD2d 298, 299; Caselli v City of New York, 105 AD2d 251). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the plaintiffs notice of claim complied with General Municipal Law § 50-e (2). Ritter, J. P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

279 A.D.2d 544, 719 N.Y.S.2d 285, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 560, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beltran-v-town-of-oyster-bay-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack