Harvell v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Harvell v. New York City Transit Authority

49 A.D.2d 765, 373 N.Y.S.2d 14, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10755

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

DecidedSeptember 29, 1975

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 49 A.D.2d 765 (Harvell 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

Harvell v. New York City Transit Authority, 49 A.D.2d 765, 373 N.Y.S.2d 14, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10755 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding to validate a notice of claim served under subdivision 2 of section 1212 of the Public Authorities Law and subdivision 1 of section 50-e of the General Municipal Law, petitioners appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated January 15, 1975, which denied the application and dismissed the proceeding. Order affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements. The governing statute (General Municipal Law, § 50-e, subd 3) requires service by registered mail. Service by certified mail does not comply with this requirement (Montez v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 43 AD2d 224). Rabin, Acting P. J., Latham, Cohalan, Margett and Christ, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding to validate a notice of claim served under subdivision 2 of section 1212 of the Public Authorities Law and subdivision 1 of section 50-e of the General Municipal Law, petitioners appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated January 15, 1975, which denied the application and dismissed the proceeding. Order affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements. The governing statute (General Municipal Law, § 50-e, subd 3) requires service by registered mail. Service by certified mail does not comply with this requirement (Montez v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 43 AD2d 224). Rabin, Acting P. J., Latham, Cohalan, Margett and Christ, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.2d 765, 373 N.Y.S.2d 14, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10755, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harvell-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack