D'Alessandro v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

D'Alessandro v. New York City Transit Authority

192 A.D.2d 505, 596 N.Y.S.2d 721, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3386

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

DecidedApril 5, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 192 A.D.2d 505 (D'Alessandro v. New York City Transit Authority) 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

D'Alessandro v. New York City Transit Authority, 192 A.D.2d 505, 596 N.Y.S.2d 721, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3386 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Williams, J.), dated February 7, 1991, which dismissed the complaint for failure to serve an adequate notice of claim under General Municipal Law § 50-e.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We discern no error in the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the complaint, inasmuch as the plaintiff’s notice of claim failed to set forth with adequate specificity the manner in which the claim arose, and the defendant’s ability to promptly and thoroughly investigate the claim was prejudiced thereby (see, General Municipal Law § 50-e [2]; Altmayer v City of New York, 149 AD2d 638; Caselli v City of New York, 105 AD2d 251). Sullivan, J. P., Balletta, O’Brien and Santucci, 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 plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Williams, J.), dated February 7, 1991, which dismissed the complaint for failure to serve an adequate notice of claim under General Municipal Law § 50-e.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We discern no error in the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the complaint, inasmuch as the plaintiff’s notice of claim failed to set forth with adequate specificity the manner in which the claim arose, and the defendant’s ability to promptly and thoroughly investigate the claim was prejudiced thereby (see, General Municipal Law § 50-e [2]; Altmayer v City of New York, 149 AD2d 638; Caselli v City of New York, 105 AD2d 251). Sullivan, J. P., Balletta, O’Brien and Santucci, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 A.D.2d 505, 596 N.Y.S.2d 721, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3386, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dalessandro-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack