Erlacher v. Suffolk County Department of Parks

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Erlacher v. Suffolk County Department of Parks

51 A.D.2d 742, 379 N.Y.S.2d 383, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11259

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

DecidedFebruary 9, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 51 A.D.2d 742 (Erlacher v. Suffolk County Department of Parks) 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

Erlacher v. Suffolk County Department of Parks, 51 A.D.2d 742, 379 N.Y.S.2d 383, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11259 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered May 16, 1975, which denied their motion to dismiss the affirmative defense of failure to serve a timely notice of claim or, in the alternative, for leave to file a late notice of claim. Upon renewal of defendant’s motion (in its brief) to dismiss the appeal, said motion is granted and the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements. The appeal has been rendered academic by reason of a subsequent order of the Supreme Court which dismissed the complaint (see Champion Int. Corp. v Dependable Ind. Corp., 47 AD2d 473; Herold v Breike, 49 AD2d 939). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Cohalan, Rabin and Shapiro, 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, Suffolk County, entered May 16, 1975, which denied their motion to dismiss the affirmative defense of failure to serve a timely notice of claim or, in the alternative, for leave to file a late notice of claim. Upon renewal of defendant’s motion (in its brief) to dismiss the appeal, said motion is granted and the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements. The appeal has been rendered academic by reason of a subsequent order of the Supreme Court which dismissed the complaint (see Champion Int. Corp. v Dependable Ind. Corp., 47 AD2d 473; Herold v Breike, 49 AD2d 939). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Cohalan, Rabin and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 A.D.2d 742, 379 N.Y.S.2d 383, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11259, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/erlacher-v-suffolk-county-department-of-parks-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack