Lopez v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lopez v. City of New York

248 A.D.2d 258, 668 N.Y.S.2d 889, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2954

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

DecidedMarch 19, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 248 A.D.2d 258 (Lopez 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

Lopez v. City of New York, 248 A.D.2d 258, 668 N.Y.S.2d 889, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2954 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis York, J.), entered October 1, 1996, which granted plaintiff’s motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim, without prejudice to defendant-appellant’s moving for “reconsideration” at the conclusion of the General Municipal Law § 50-h hearing, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion was properly granted where the delay resulting from plaintiffs mistaken service of her notice of claim on the wrong public entity was short (see, Matter of Soto v New York City Hous. Auth., 180 AD2d 570), and where the section 50-h hearing might well clarify the location and nature of the alleged defect in the subway station pavement that caused plaintiff to fall, and the prejudice, if any, to defendant caused by the delay in supplying needed information (see, D’Alessandro v New York City Tr. Auth., 83 NY2d 891; Mayer v DuPont Assocs., 80 AD2d 799).

Concur — Lerner, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Nardelli and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis York, J.), entered October 1, 1996, which granted plaintiff’s motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim, without prejudice to defendant-appellant’s moving for “reconsideration” at the conclusion of the General Municipal Law § 50-h hearing, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion was properly granted where the delay resulting from plaintiffs mistaken service of her notice of claim on the wrong public entity was short (see, Matter of Soto v New York City Hous. Auth., 180 AD2d 570), and where the section 50-h hearing might well clarify the location and nature of the alleged defect in the subway station pavement that caused plaintiff to fall, and the prejudice, if any, to defendant caused by the delay in supplying needed information (see, D’Alessandro v New York City Tr. Auth., 83 NY2d 891; Mayer v DuPont Assocs., 80 AD2d 799).

Concur — Lerner, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Nardelli and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D.2d 258, 668 N.Y.S.2d 889, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2954, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lopez-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack