O'Rourke v. Westchester County Playland Commission

283 A.D. 874, 129 N.Y.S.2d 196, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5630
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 5, 1954
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 283 A.D. 874 (O'Rourke v. Westchester County Playland Commission) 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
O'Rourke v. Westchester County Playland Commission, 283 A.D. 874, 129 N.Y.S.2d 196, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5630 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1954).

Opinion

Application on behalf of an infant for leave to serve a notice [875]*875of claim pursuant to subdivision 5 of section 50-e of the General Municipal Law, after the expiration of the ninety-day period fixed therein. The claim is for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained as the result of appellants’ negligence. Within a month after the happening of the accident the County Attorney, who is attorney for the appellants, was served with notice of claim in accordance with the explicit provisions of the Westchester County Playland Commission Act (L. 1941, ch. 777, § 4, subd. 20 ; § 10). Immediately upon discovery by respondent’s attorneys that the foregoing provisions were superseded by the provisions of section 50-e of the General Municipal Law (L. 1945, ch. 694, § 13), and in April, 1953, the application was made for leave to serve the notice of claim on appellants. The appeals are from an order dated May 8, 1953, granting respondent’s application and from so much of an order dated June 19, 1953, on reargument, as adhered to the original determination. Order on reargument, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. In the light of the infant’s tender age, the prompt notification of the appellants through their attorney, and the misleading and conflicting statutes, there was no improvident exercise of discretion in the granting of the application. Appeal from original order dismissed, without costs. Adel, Acting P. J., Wenzel, Schmidt, Beldock and Murphy, JJ., concur,

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

Related

Roa v. Westchester County Playland Commission
34 A.D.2d 818 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1970)
Biancoviso v. City of New York
285 A.D. 320 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1955)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
283 A.D. 874, 129 N.Y.S.2d 196, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5630, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/orourke-v-westchester-county-playland-commission-nyappdiv-1954.