Kehoe v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kehoe v. City of New York

201 A.D.2d 623, 609 N.Y.S.2d 836, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1458

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

DecidedFebruary 22, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 201 A.D.2d 623 (Kehoe 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

Kehoe v. City of New York, 201 A.D.2d 623, 609 N.Y.S.2d 836, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1458 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Nahman, J.), dated August 5, 1991, which denied his motion to strike the defendant’s affirmative defense of lack of jurisdiction and granted the defendant’s cross-motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to serve a notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-i.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff’s complaint was properly dismissed for failure to serve a notice of claim (see, General Municipal Law § 50-i [1]; Davidson v Bronx Mun. Hosp., 64 NY2d 59). The Supreme Court granted the plaintiff leave to serve a late notice of claim, but the plaintiff failed to do so. Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Ritter and Krausman, 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, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Nahman, J.), dated August 5, 1991, which denied his motion to strike the defendant’s affirmative defense of lack of jurisdiction and granted the defendant’s cross-motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to serve a notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-i.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff’s complaint was properly dismissed for failure to serve a notice of claim (see, General Municipal Law § 50-i [1]; Davidson v Bronx Mun. Hosp., 64 NY2d 59). The Supreme Court granted the plaintiff leave to serve a late notice of claim, but the plaintiff failed to do so. Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Ritter and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

201 A.D.2d 623, 609 N.Y.S.2d 836, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1458, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kehoe-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack