Kinard v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kinard v. City of New York

26 A.D.2d 821, 273 N.Y.S.2d 775, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3420

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

DecidedOctober 10, 1966

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 26 A.D.2d 821 (Kinard 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

Kinard v. City of New York, 26 A.D.2d 821, 273 N.Y.S.2d 775, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3420 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

In a special proceeding by a claimant for leave to amend a notice of claim, the respondent City of New York appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered November 22, 1965, which granted the application. Order reversed, on the law, and motion denied, with $10 costs and disbursements. No questions of fact were considered. The amendment which was sought was to add a cause of action for malicious prosecution as an additional ground of claim against appellant. In our opinion, such amendment would be of a substantive nature and not within the purview of subdivision 6 of section 50-e of the General Municipal Law. It would be, in effect, the interposition of a new cause of action subsequent to the time limited by statute. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

In a special proceeding by a claimant for leave to amend a notice of claim, the respondent City of New York appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered November 22, 1965, which granted the application. Order reversed, on the law, and motion denied, with $10 costs and disbursements. No questions of fact were considered. The amendment which was sought was to add a cause of action for malicious prosecution as an additional ground of claim against appellant. In our opinion, such amendment would be of a substantive nature and not within the purview of subdivision 6 of section 50-e of the General Municipal Law. It would be, in effect, the interposition of a new cause of action subsequent to the time limited by statute. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A.D.2d 821, 273 N.Y.S.2d 775, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3420, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kinard-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack