Johnson v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Johnson v. City of New York

292 A.D.2d 453, 738 N.Y.S.2d 885, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2488

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

DecidedMarch 11, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 292 A.D.2d 453 (Johnson v. City of New York) 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

Johnson v. City of New York, 292 A.D.2d 453, 738 N.Y.S.2d 885, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2488 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (6), the petitioner appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kangs County (Hutcherson, J.), dated March 28, 2001, as denied her motion for leave to serve an amended notice of claim.

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

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the petitioner’s motion for leave to serve an amended notice of claim, as the respondents were prejudiced by the mistake in her original notice of claim (see, General Municipal Law § 50-e [6]; Konstantinides v City of New York, 278 AD2d 235; Turner v Town of Oyster Bay, 268 AD2d 526, 527; Gofman v City of New York, 268 AD2d 588; Zapata v City of New York, 225 AD2d 543, 543-544). Altman, J.P., Smith, Krausman, McGinity and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (6), the petitioner appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kangs County (Hutcherson, J.), dated March 28, 2001, as denied her motion for leave to serve an amended notice of claim.

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

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the petitioner’s motion for leave to serve an amended notice of claim, as the respondents were prejudiced by the mistake in her original notice of claim (see, General Municipal Law § 50-e [6]; Konstantinides v City of New York, 278 AD2d 235; Turner v Town of Oyster Bay, 268 AD2d 526, 527; Gofman v City of New York, 268 AD2d 588; Zapata v City of New York, 225 AD2d 543, 543-544). Altman, J.P., Smith, Krausman, McGinity and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

292 A.D.2d 453, 738 N.Y.S.2d 885, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2488, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack