Phoenix Sound, Inc. v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Phoenix Sound, Inc. v. City of New York

19 A.D.3d 328, 799 N.Y.S.2d 24, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7260

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

DecidedJune 30, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 19 A.D.3d 328 (Phoenix Sound, Inc. 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

Phoenix Sound, Inc. v. City of New York, 19 A.D.3d 328, 799 N.Y.S.2d 24, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7260 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Jane Goodman, J.), entered April 8, 2004, which [329]*329granted petitioners leave to file a late notice of claim except as to their claims for defamation, injurious falsehood, tortious interference with contractual and prospective contractual relations and prima facie tort, unanimously modified, on the law, leave denied as to any claims arising prior to February 7, 2003 as well as all claims for negligent hiring, training, retention and supervision, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

With regard to claims predating February 7, 2003, there is no indication when they accrued, and petitioners did not sufficiently set forth the manner in which such claims arose to allow respondent adequately to investigate and evaluate their merits (see General Municipal Law § 50-e [1] [a]; [2]; Brown v City of New York, 95 NY2d 389 [2000]). The conclusory claims of negligence in hiring, training, retention and supervision were likewise too vague to provide respondent adequate notice for proper investigation.

We have considered respondent’s remaining contentions and find them without merit. Concur—Saxe, J.E, Ellerin, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.

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

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Jane Goodman, J.), entered April 8, 2004, which [329]*329granted petitioners leave to file a late notice of claim except as to their claims for defamation, injurious falsehood, tortious interference with contractual and prospective contractual relations and prima facie tort, unanimously modified, on the law, leave denied as to any claims arising prior to February 7, 2003 as well as all claims for negligent hiring, training, retention and supervision, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

With regard to claims predating February 7, 2003, there is no indication when they accrued, and petitioners did not sufficiently set forth the manner in which such claims arose to allow respondent adequately to investigate and evaluate their merits (see General Municipal Law § 50-e [1] [a]; [2]; Brown v City of New York, 95 NY2d 389 [2000]). The conclusory claims of negligence in hiring, training, retention and supervision were likewise too vague to provide respondent adequate notice for proper investigation.

We have considered respondent’s remaining contentions and find them without merit. Concur—Saxe, J.E, Ellerin, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.3d 328, 799 N.Y.S.2d 24, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7260, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/phoenix-sound-inc-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack