Hall v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hall v. New York City Transit Authority

5 A.D.3d 731, 773 N.Y.S.2d 600

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

DecidedMarch 29, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 5 A.D.3d 731 (Hall 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

Hall v. New York City Transit Authority, 5 A.D.3d 731, 773 N.Y.S.2d 600 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Knipel, J.), dated March 20, 2003, as denied that branch of his motion which was for leave to serve an amended notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (6) and granted the cross motion of the defendant New York City Transit Authority to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The long delay on the part of the plaintiff in moving for leave [732]*732to serve an amended notice of claim substantially prejudiced the ability of the defendant New York City Transit Authority (hereinafter the NYCTA) to investigate this matter involving a short-lived condition (see Rodriguez v City of New York, 223 AD2d 536 [1996]). Under these circumstances, it was a provident exercise of discretion to deny that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for leave to serve an amended notice of claim and grant the cross motion of the NYCTA to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it (see Rodriguez v City of New York, supra). Santucci, J.P., Smith, Luciano and Adams, 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, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Knipel, J.), dated March 20, 2003, as denied that branch of his motion which was for leave to serve an amended notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (6) and granted the cross motion of the defendant New York City Transit Authority to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The long delay on the part of the plaintiff in moving for leave [732]*732to serve an amended notice of claim substantially prejudiced the ability of the defendant New York City Transit Authority (hereinafter the NYCTA) to investigate this matter involving a short-lived condition (see Rodriguez v City of New York, 223 AD2d 536 [1996]). Under these circumstances, it was a provident exercise of discretion to deny that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for leave to serve an amended notice of claim and grant the cross motion of the NYCTA to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it (see Rodriguez v City of New York, supra). Santucci, J.P., Smith, Luciano and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 A.D.3d 731, 773 N.Y.S.2d 600, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hall-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack