Priceman v. City of New York

199 Misc. 737, 106 N.Y.S.2d 916, 1951 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2255
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided May 10, 1951·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The City Court of the City of New York has no jurisdiction to entertain an application for leave to serve a late notice of claim upon the City of New York (Meier v. City of New York, 199 Misc. 305). Failure to comply with the requirements of section 50-e of the General Municipal Law nullifies the judgment recovered by the infant plaintiff. (See Chavers v. City of Mount Vernon, 301 N. Y. 634.)

[738] The order, so far as appealed from, should he unanimously reversed upon the law, without costs, and motion denied, without costs; the judgment should he unanimously reversed upon the law, without costs, and complaint dismissed, without costs.

Fennelly, Beldock and Walsh, JJ., concur.

Order reversed, etc.

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

Priceman v. City of New York, 199 Misc. 737, 106 N.Y.S.2d 916, 1951 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2255 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1951).

199 Misc. 737 (Priceman v. City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Perez v. City of New York
133 Misc. 2d 1083 (New York Supreme Court, 1986)
Pandolfi v. Board of Education
9 Misc. 2d 305 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1957)