Briganti v. Harrison Central School District

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Briganti v. Harrison Central School District

91 A.D.2d 648, 457 N.Y.S.2d 89, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19513

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

DecidedDecember 20, 1982

StatusPublished

This text of 91 A.D.2d 648 (Briganti v. Harrison Central School District) 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

Briganti v. Harrison Central School District, 91 A.D.2d 648, 457 N.Y.S.2d 89, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19513 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Wood, J.), dated March 23, 1981, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the action, and denied their cross motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim, or in the alternative, a declaration that they had complied with section 50-e of the General Municipal Law. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. The plaintiffs’ cross motion was made more than one year and 90 days after the plaintiff Richard Briganti attained his majority. As a matter of law, Special Term was not authorized to grant leave to serve a late notice of claim upon an application pursuant to section 50-e of the General Municipal Law made after the time limited for the commencement of an action against the public corporation had expired (see General Municipal Law, § 50-i, subd 1, par [c]; Cohen v Pearl Riv. Union Free School Dist., 51 NY2d 256, 259, 262). Further, defendant’s knowledge of the accident and receipt of statements for certain medical and dental services within 90 days from the date of the accident, cannot be equated with plaintiffs’ compliance with section 50-e of the General Municipal Law, which requires written notice of a tort claim. Damiani, J. P., O’Connor, Thompson and Bracken, JJ., concur.

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

— In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Wood, J.), dated March 23, 1981, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the action, and denied their cross motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim, or in the alternative, a declaration that they had complied with section 50-e of the General Municipal Law. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. The plaintiffs’ cross motion was made more than one year and 90 days after the plaintiff Richard Briganti attained his majority. As a matter of law, Special Term was not authorized to grant leave to serve a late notice of claim upon an application pursuant to section 50-e of the General Municipal Law made after the time limited for the commencement of an action against the public corporation had expired (see General Municipal Law, § 50-i, subd 1, par [c]; Cohen v Pearl Riv. Union Free School Dist., 51 NY2d 256, 259, 262). Further, defendant’s knowledge of the accident and receipt of statements for certain medical and dental services within 90 days from the date of the accident, cannot be equated with plaintiffs’ compliance with section 50-e of the General Municipal Law, which requires written notice of a tort claim. Damiani, J. P., O’Connor, Thompson and Bracken, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 A.D.2d 648, 457 N.Y.S.2d 89, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19513, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/briganti-v-harrison-central-school-district-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack