LaManna v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

LaManna v. City of New York

271 A.D.2d 494, 706 N.Y.S.2d 915, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4036

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

DecidedApril 10, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 271 A.D.2d 494 (LaManna 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

LaManna v. City of New York, 271 A.D.2d 494, 706 N.Y.S.2d 915, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4036 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for injury to property, the defendant New York City Transit Authority appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Clemente, J.), dated April 30, 1999, which denied its motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it for failure to comply with General Municipal Law § 50-e, and granted the plaintiffs cross motion to serve an amended notice of claim.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the appellant’s motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it, and in granting the plaintiffs cross motion to serve an amended notice of claim (see, General Municipal Law § 50-e [6]). O’Brien, J. P., Altman, Friedmann, McGinity and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for injury to property, the defendant New York City Transit Authority appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Clemente, J.), dated April 30, 1999, which denied its motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it for failure to comply with General Municipal Law § 50-e, and granted the plaintiffs cross motion to serve an amended notice of claim.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the appellant’s motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it, and in granting the plaintiffs cross motion to serve an amended notice of claim (see, General Municipal Law § 50-e [6]). O’Brien, J. P., Altman, Friedmann, McGinity and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 A.D.2d 494, 706 N.Y.S.2d 915, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4036, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lamanna-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack