Cron v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cron v. City of New York

121 A.D.3d 601, 995 N.Y.S.2d 54

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

DecidedOctober 28, 2014

Docket13338 114535/11

StatusPublished

This text of 121 A.D.3d 601 (Cron 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

Cron v. City of New York, 121 A.D.3d 601, 995 N.Y.S.2d 54 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Donna M. Mills, J.), entered June 25, 2013, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant City’s motion to dismiss the complaint and all cross claims as against it for failure to comply with the notice of claim requirement of General Municipal Law § 50-e, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly determined that the original notice of claim, together with plaintiff’s testimony at the 50-h hearing, sufficiently set forth the location of her accident to satisfy the requirements of General Municipal Law § 50-e (2), since it provided “information sufficient to enable the city to investigate” (Brown v City of New York, 95 NY2d 389, 393 [2000]; see D’Alessandro v New York City Tr. Auth., 83 NY2d 891, 893 [1994]). The amended notice of claim, which clarified the location of the alleged accident, was proper pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (6), since the City did not demonstrate any prejudice or contend that plaintiff acted in bad faith (see Goodwin v New York City Hous. Auth., 42 AD3d 63, 66 [1st Dept 2007]).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Renwick, ManzanetDaniels, Feinman and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Donna M. Mills, J.), entered June 25, 2013, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant City’s motion to dismiss the complaint and all cross claims as against it for failure to comply with the notice of claim requirement of General Municipal Law § 50-e, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly determined that the original notice of claim, together with plaintiff’s testimony at the 50-h hearing, sufficiently set forth the location of her accident to satisfy the requirements of General Municipal Law § 50-e (2), since it provided “information sufficient to enable the city to investigate” (Brown v City of New York, 95 NY2d 389, 393 [2000]; see D’Alessandro v New York City Tr. Auth., 83 NY2d 891, 893 [1994]). The amended notice of claim, which clarified the location of the alleged accident, was proper pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (6), since the City did not demonstrate any prejudice or contend that plaintiff acted in bad faith (see Goodwin v New York City Hous. Auth., 42 AD3d 63, 66 [1st Dept 2007]).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Renwick, ManzanetDaniels, Feinman and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 A.D.3d 601, 995 N.Y.S.2d 54, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cron-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack