Lustig v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lustig v. City of New York

278 A.D. 716, 104 N.Y.S.2d 65, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4463

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

DecidedMarch 26, 1951

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 278 A.D. 716 (Lustig 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

Lustig v. City of New York, 278 A.D. 716, 104 N.Y.S.2d 65, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4463 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order denying the motion by an infant claimant for leave to file a late notice of claim, under section 50-e of the General Municipal Law. The infant was twelve years of age at the time of the happening of the accident upon which the claim is based. The application was made one day before the expiration of the year within which the application might have been made, and was denied on the authority of Matter of Nori V. City of Yonkers (300 N. Y. 632), on the ground that the failure to serve the notice in time was not by reason of the claimant’s infancy. There was no other claim of disability. Order affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and MaeCrate, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from an order denying the motion by an infant claimant for leave to file a late notice of claim, under section 50-e of the General Municipal Law. The infant was twelve years of age at the time of the happening of the accident upon which the claim is based. The application was made one day before the expiration of the year within which the application might have been made, and was denied on the authority of Matter of Nori V. City of Yonkers (300 N. Y. 632), on the ground that the failure to serve the notice in time was not by reason of the claimant’s infancy. There was no other claim of disability. Order affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and MaeCrate, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 A.D. 716, 104 N.Y.S.2d 65, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4463, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lustig-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack