McVan v. City of New Rochelle

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McVan v. City of New Rochelle

127 A.D.2d 825, 511 N.Y.S.2d 942, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43317

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

DecidedFebruary 23, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 127 A.D.2d 825 (McVan v. City of New Rochelle) 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

McVan v. City of New Rochelle, 127 A.D.2d 825, 511 N.Y.S.2d 942, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43317 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for negligence and tortious interference with a business, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rosato, J.), dated September 19, 1985, which, upon an order granting the defendant City of New Rochelle’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint insofar as it is asserted against it, was in favor of the defendant City of New Rochelle and against him. (We deem the plaintiff’s notice of appeal from an order entered September 5, 1985 as a premature notice of appeal from the judgment.)

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff failed to serve his complaint in this case within one year and 90 days after the happening of the event upon [826]*826which this claim is based, i.e., his receipt of erroneous advice from an employee of the defendant City of New Rochelle that his proposed gymnasium was a valid use under the New Rochelle zoning ordinance. Therefore, the Supreme Court, Westchester County, was correct in finding that the plaintiff’s action as against the City of New Rochelle was barred by the Statute of Limitations (see, General Municipal Law § 50-i; Klein v City of Yonkers, 53 NY2d 1011, 1013; Doyle v 800, Inc., 72 AD2d 761, 762). We have considered the plaintiff’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Niehoff, Weinstein and Eiber, 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 negligence and tortious interference with a business, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rosato, J.), dated September 19, 1985, which, upon an order granting the defendant City of New Rochelle’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint insofar as it is asserted against it, was in favor of the defendant City of New Rochelle and against him. (We deem the plaintiff’s notice of appeal from an order entered September 5, 1985 as a premature notice of appeal from the judgment.)

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff failed to serve his complaint in this case within one year and 90 days after the happening of the event upon [826]*826which this claim is based, i.e., his receipt of erroneous advice from an employee of the defendant City of New Rochelle that his proposed gymnasium was a valid use under the New Rochelle zoning ordinance. Therefore, the Supreme Court, Westchester County, was correct in finding that the plaintiff’s action as against the City of New Rochelle was barred by the Statute of Limitations (see, General Municipal Law § 50-i; Klein v City of Yonkers, 53 NY2d 1011, 1013; Doyle v 800, Inc., 72 AD2d 761, 762). We have considered the plaintiff’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Niehoff, Weinstein and Eiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 A.D.2d 825, 511 N.Y.S.2d 942, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43317, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcvan-v-city-of-new-rochelle-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack