Centeno v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Centeno v. City of New York

224 A.D.2d 268, 637 N.Y.S.2d 415, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1046

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

DecidedFebruary 13, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 224 A.D.2d 268 (Centeno 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

Centeno v. City of New York, 224 A.D.2d 268, 637 N.Y.S.2d 415, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1046 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Salvador Collazo, J.), entered on or about June 24, 1994, which denied plaintiffs motion to amend her notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (6), and granted defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to comply with General Municipal Law § 50-e (2), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs motion to amend her notice of claim, made over three years after the accident, was properly denied, defendant having already conducted and completed an investigation at the incorrect site set forth in the notice of claim. Where the municipality is misled by the erroneous notice of claim to conduct an investigation at the wrong site, this circumstance alone results in serious prejudice (Matter of Adlowitz v City of New York, 205 AD2d 369). Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rubin, Ross 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 (Salvador Collazo, J.), entered on or about June 24, 1994, which denied plaintiffs motion to amend her notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (6), and granted defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to comply with General Municipal Law § 50-e (2), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs motion to amend her notice of claim, made over three years after the accident, was properly denied, defendant having already conducted and completed an investigation at the incorrect site set forth in the notice of claim. Where the municipality is misled by the erroneous notice of claim to conduct an investigation at the wrong site, this circumstance alone results in serious prejudice (Matter of Adlowitz v City of New York, 205 AD2d 369). Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rubin, Ross and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 A.D.2d 268, 637 N.Y.S.2d 415, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1046, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/centeno-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack