Rodriguez v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rodriguez v. City of New York

38 A.D.3d 268, 832 N.Y.S.2d 13

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

DecidedMarch 8, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 38 A.D.3d 268 (Rodriguez 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

Rodriguez v. City of New York, 38 A.D.3d 268, 832 N.Y.S.2d 13 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth L. Thompson, Jr., J.), entered July 18, 2005, which granted defendants’ motion and cross motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[269]*269A notice of claim must provide sufficient information as to location (General Municipal Law § 50-e [2]) so that governmental authorities have an adequate opportunity to investigate (Teresta v City of New York, 304 NY 440, 443 [1952]; Edgehill v City of New York, 260 AD2d 597 [1999]). Housing Authority investigators were unable to locate the place of the alleged occurrence from the description in the notice of claim. Prejudice is established where a municipal defendant is “able to show that it actually conducted a timely investigation at the wrong site due to the erroneous description” (Williams v City of New York, 229 AD2d 114, 117 [1997]). Here, the notice of claim incorrectly identified the accident site, the injured plaintiffs General Municipal Law § 50-h testimony was “vague,” and the “obscure” photographs provided by her two years after service of the notice of claim failed to provide any assistance in identifying the location. Under such circumstances, dismissal of the complaint was appropriate (Reyes v City of New York, 281 AD2d 235 [2001]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Sullivan, Sweeny, Catterson and McGuire, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth L. Thompson, Jr., J.), entered July 18, 2005, which granted defendants’ motion and cross motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[269]*269A notice of claim must provide sufficient information as to location (General Municipal Law § 50-e [2]) so that governmental authorities have an adequate opportunity to investigate (Teresta v City of New York, 304 NY 440, 443 [1952]; Edgehill v City of New York, 260 AD2d 597 [1999]). Housing Authority investigators were unable to locate the place of the alleged occurrence from the description in the notice of claim. Prejudice is established where a municipal defendant is “able to show that it actually conducted a timely investigation at the wrong site due to the erroneous description” (Williams v City of New York, 229 AD2d 114, 117 [1997]). Here, the notice of claim incorrectly identified the accident site, the injured plaintiffs General Municipal Law § 50-h testimony was “vague,” and the “obscure” photographs provided by her two years after service of the notice of claim failed to provide any assistance in identifying the location. Under such circumstances, dismissal of the complaint was appropriate (Reyes v City of New York, 281 AD2d 235 [2001]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Sullivan, Sweeny, Catterson and McGuire, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A.D.3d 268, 832 N.Y.S.2d 13, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodriguez-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack