Frank v. City of New York

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Frank v. City of New York

75 Misc. 472, 133 N.Y.S. 434

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedFebruary 15, 1912

StatusPublished

This text of 75 Misc. 472 (Frank v. City of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Frank v. City of New York, 75 Misc. 472, 133 N.Y.S. 434 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

Sbabhry, J.

The. action was brought to recover damages for an injury to a horse owned by the plaintiff alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant. No verified claim was presented' by the plaintiff to the comptroller of the city of New York, as required by section 261 of the Greater New York charter. The. learned court below held that the failure of .the plaintiff to present “ a verified [473]*473statement ” was fatal to the plaintiff’s right to recover, and rendered judgment in favor of the defendant, dismissing the complaint.

The single question presented for review upon this appeal is the correctness of this ruling.- The requirement of section 261 of the Greater Few York charter, that “ a verified statement” shall be filed with the comptroller, is a condition precedent to the plaintiff’s right to maintain the -action. Curry v. City of Buffalo, 135 N. Y. 366.

The fact that, after the defective claim was served, the plaintiff was examined as to the circumstances of the accident to his horse and that the claim was not returned, did not establish a waiver of the right to object to the defective claim on the part of the defendant. Forsyth v. City of Oswego, 191 N. Y. 441.

The claim of the appellant that he was not required to verify his statement because he appeared before the comptroller and signed and swore to the examination taken by that officer under authority of section 149 of the Greater Few York charter is untenable. The words “ verified statement,” as used in section 261, do not refer to a verification of the plaintiff’s claim upon the examination conducted by the comptroller, but relate to a separate and distinct statement which a claimant is required to file, “ showing in detail the property alleged to have been damaged or destroyed, and the value-thereof.” The case of Patterson v. City of Brooklyn, 6 App. Div. 127, is in point and is decisive of the question presented for determination. In that case the court said: “ We are of the opinion that the statute requires the statement to be sworn to, and that an affidavit of verification must be attached to it when presented to the comptroller. It is true that the comptroller is given power to examine the claimant, and that by so doing he may verify the claim; but the term £ verified,’ as applied to pleadings and statements of this character, has a settled meaning in our statutory law, and it refers to an affidavit attached to the statement as to the truth of the matters therein set forth. That the Legislature, in requiring that the claim be ‘ duly veri[474]*474fled/ did not refer to a verification thereof by an examination of the complainant by the comptroller is clear from the plain language of the law.”

It follows that the judgment appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.

Gérard and Hotchkiss, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

Sbabhry, J.

The. action was brought to recover damages for an injury to a horse owned by the plaintiff alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant. No verified claim was presented' by the plaintiff to the comptroller of the city of New York, as required by section 261 of the Greater New York charter. The. learned court below held that the failure of .the plaintiff to present “ a verified [473]*473statement ” was fatal to the plaintiff’s right to recover, and rendered judgment in favor of the defendant, dismissing the complaint.

The single question presented for review upon this appeal is the correctness of this ruling.- The requirement of section 261 of the Greater Few York charter, that “ a verified statement” shall be filed with the comptroller, is a condition precedent to the plaintiff’s right to maintain the -action. Curry v. City of Buffalo, 135 N. Y. 366.

The fact that, after the defective claim was served, the plaintiff was examined as to the circumstances of the accident to his horse and that the claim was not returned, did not establish a waiver of the right to object to the defective claim on the part of the defendant. Forsyth v. City of Oswego, 191 N. Y. 441.

The claim of the appellant that he was not required to verify his statement because he appeared before the comptroller and signed and swore to the examination taken by that officer under authority of section 149 of the Greater Few York charter is untenable. The words “ verified statement,” as used in section 261, do not refer to a verification of the plaintiff’s claim upon the examination conducted by the comptroller, but relate to a separate and distinct statement which a claimant is required to file, “ showing in detail the property alleged to have been damaged or destroyed, and the value-thereof.” The case of Patterson v. City of Brooklyn, 6 App. Div. 127, is in point and is decisive of the question presented for determination. In that case the court said: “ We are of the opinion that the statute requires the statement to be sworn to, and that an affidavit of verification must be attached to it when presented to the comptroller. It is true that the comptroller is given power to examine the claimant, and that by so doing he may verify the claim; but the term £ verified,’ as applied to pleadings and statements of this character, has a settled meaning in our statutory law, and it refers to an affidavit attached to the statement as to the truth of the matters therein set forth. That the Legislature, in requiring that the claim be ‘ duly veri[474]*474fled/ did not refer to a verification thereof by an examination of the complainant by the comptroller is clear from the plain language of the law.”

It follows that the judgment appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.

Gérard and Hotchkiss, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

75 Misc. 472, 133 N.Y.S. 434, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frank-v-city-of-new-york-nyappterm-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack