Claim of El-Barry Realty Corp. v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of El-Barry Realty Corp. v. City of New York

37 A.D.2d 543, 322 N.Y.S.2d 219, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3786

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

DecidedJune 22, 1971

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 37 A.D.2d 543 (Claim of El-Barry Realty Corp. 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

Claim of El-Barry Realty Corp. v. City of New York, 37 A.D.2d 543, 322 N.Y.S.2d 219, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3786 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on October 5, 1970, unanimously reversed on the law and the facts and the motion denied. Appellant shall recover of respondent $30 costs and disbursements of this appeal. The order grants leave to serve a notice of claim in a proposed property damage action after the 90-day period prescribed by section 50-e of the General Municipal Law. Special Term in granting the application relied on subdivision 5 of the said law, which allows a late filing where the claimant relies on settlement representations made in writing by an authorized representative of the city. Claimant alleged both oral and written representations. The alleged oral representation is unavailing (Matter of Withey v. Board of Educ., 28 A D 2d 800). The written representation could not have been relied on because it was written after the application for leave to file a late notice was made. Moreover, the person making the representation (a neighborhood conservation officer) neither appears to be authorized nor purports to act for the city. The representation is merely her confident expectation that the authorized officials would act favorably. Concur — Markewieh, J. P., Nunez, Murphy, Steuer and Eager, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on October 5, 1970, unanimously reversed on the law and the facts and the motion denied. Appellant shall recover of respondent $30 costs and disbursements of this appeal. The order grants leave to serve a notice of claim in a proposed property damage action after the 90-day period prescribed by section 50-e of the General Municipal Law. Special Term in granting the application relied on subdivision 5 of the said law, which allows a late filing where the claimant relies on settlement representations made in writing by an authorized representative of the city. Claimant alleged both oral and written representations. The alleged oral representation is unavailing (Matter of Withey v. Board of Educ., 28 A D 2d 800). The written representation could not have been relied on because it was written after the application for leave to file a late notice was made. Moreover, the person making the representation (a neighborhood conservation officer) neither appears to be authorized nor purports to act for the city. The representation is merely her confident expectation that the authorized officials would act favorably. Concur — Markewieh, J. P., Nunez, Murphy, Steuer and Eager, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 A.D.2d 543, 322 N.Y.S.2d 219, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3786, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-el-barry-realty-corp-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack