Londino v. Bank of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Londino v. Bank of New York

132 A.D.2d 688, 518 N.Y.S.2d 165, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 49231

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

DecidedJuly 27, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 132 A.D.2d 688 (Londino v. Bank 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

Londino v. Bank of New York, 132 A.D.2d 688, 518 N.Y.S.2d 165, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 49231 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Bank of New York appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Levitt, J.), entered May 28, 1985, which granted the defendant Village of Valley Stream’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims interposed against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs to the defendant-respondent.

Special Term properly concluded that the plaintiffs failure to serve the requisite written notice pursuant to Village Law § 6-628 acts as a bar to both the plaintiff’s claims against the defendant Village of Valley Stream (see, Parella v Levin, 111 AD2d 750), and to the cross claim interposed against the village by the codefendant Bank of New York (see, Barry v Niagara Frontier Tr. Sys., 35 NY2d 629, 633). Lawrence, J. P., Kunzeman, Kooper and Spatt, 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 personal injuries, the defendant Bank of New York appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Levitt, J.), entered May 28, 1985, which granted the defendant Village of Valley Stream’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims interposed against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs to the defendant-respondent.

Special Term properly concluded that the plaintiffs failure to serve the requisite written notice pursuant to Village Law § 6-628 acts as a bar to both the plaintiff’s claims against the defendant Village of Valley Stream (see, Parella v Levin, 111 AD2d 750), and to the cross claim interposed against the village by the codefendant Bank of New York (see, Barry v Niagara Frontier Tr. Sys., 35 NY2d 629, 633). Lawrence, J. P., Kunzeman, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

132 A.D.2d 688, 518 N.Y.S.2d 165, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 49231, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/londino-v-bank-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack