Kelly v. City of New York

240 A.D.2d 709, 661 N.Y.S.2d 515, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7078
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 30, 1997
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 240 A.D.2d 709 (Kelly 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
Kelly v. City of New York, 240 A.D.2d 709, 661 N.Y.S.2d 515, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7078 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants City of New York and Robert Willis appeal, as limited by their brief, and the defen[710]*710dant Steven A. Lelonek separately appeals, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Huttner, J.), dated May 31, 1995, as granted the plaintiffs motion for leave to amend his complaint to assert a cause of action to recover damages pursuant to General Municipal Law § 205-e.

Ordered that the appeal by the defendant Steven A. Lelonek is dismissed as withdrawn, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from by the defendants City of New York and Robert Willis, with costs.

The plaintiff police officer commenced this action in 1988 to recover damages for personal injuries based on common-law negligence after he was injured when the patrol car in which he was a passenger collided with another vehicle operated by the defendant Steven A. Lelonek. In May 1995 he sought leave to amend the complaint to add a cause of action pursuant to General Municipal Law § 205-e, alleging violations by the defendants of various sections of the Vehicle and Traffic Law. The court granted the motion and the defendants appeal.

The Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs motion for leave to amend the complaint. Both Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1104 and 1144 are applicable on the facts of this case and can serve as statutory predicates for causes of action pursuant to General Municipal Law § 205-e (see, Gleavy v City of New York, 240 AD2d 700 [decided herewith]; Maisky v Towner, 196 AD2d 532; Costantini v Bendetto, 190 AD2d 888). Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Thompson and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Schiavone v. City of New York
271 A.D.2d 430 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Liguori v. City of New York
250 A.D.2d 738 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Gonzalez v. Iocovello
249 A.D.2d 143 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Gleavy v. City of New York
240 A.D.2d 700 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
240 A.D.2d 709, 661 N.Y.S.2d 515, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7078, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kelly-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1997.