Lawless v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lawless v. New York City Transit Authority

1 A.D.2d 677, 146 N.Y.S.2d 713, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3911

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

DecidedDecember 12, 1955

StatusPublished

This text of 1 A.D.2d 677 (Lawless v. New York City Transit Authority) 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

Lawless v. New York City Transit Authority, 1 A.D.2d 677, 146 N.Y.S.2d 713, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3911 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

Order granting respondent’s application for leave to serve a notice of claim nunc pro tune, after the expiration of the period fixed by section 50-e of the General Municipal Law, affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. The record establishes that respondent was mentally and physically incapacitated during the time within which the notice of claim was required to be served and by reason of such disability failed to serve the notice within that time. (Cf. Matter of Rosenberg v. City of New York, 309 N. Y. 303; Matter of Simone v. County of Westchester, 277 App. Div. 1008, and Matter of Gehr v. Board of Educ. of City of Yonkers, 282 App. Div. 880.) Upon the facts shown in this record, there was no abuse of discretion by Special Term in finding, in effect, that the application was made within a reasonable time after the expiration of the statutory period. (Cf. Matter of Simone v. County of Westchester, supra.) Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Beldock, Murphy and Ughetta, JJ., concur.

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

Order granting respondent’s application for leave to serve a notice of claim nunc pro tune, after the expiration of the period fixed by section 50-e of the General Municipal Law, affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. The record establishes that respondent was mentally and physically incapacitated during the time within which the notice of claim was required to be served and by reason of such disability failed to serve the notice within that time. (Cf. Matter of Rosenberg v. City of New York, 309 N. Y. 303; Matter of Simone v. County of Westchester, 277 App. Div. 1008, and Matter of Gehr v. Board of Educ. of City of Yonkers, 282 App. Div. 880.) Upon the facts shown in this record, there was no abuse of discretion by Special Term in finding, in effect, that the application was made within a reasonable time after the expiration of the statutory period. (Cf. Matter of Simone v. County of Westchester, supra.) Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Beldock, Murphy and Ughetta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 A.D.2d 677, 146 N.Y.S.2d 713, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3911, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lawless-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack