Rodriguez v. New York City Health & Hospitals

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rodriguez v. New York City Health & Hospitals

88 A.D.2d 660, 450 N.Y.S.2d 520, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16895

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

DecidedMay 24, 1982

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 88 A.D.2d 660 (Rodriguez v. New York City Health & Hospitals) 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. New York City Health & Hospitals, 88 A.D.2d 660, 450 N.Y.S.2d 520, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16895 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a proceeding, inter alia, for leave to serve a late notice of claim upon the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation as a condition precedent to the institution of an action against employees of the corporation, the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Yoswein, J.), dated January 5,1981, which granted, inter alia, leave to serve a late notice of claim. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. The infant claimant was allegedly injured at the time of her birth in 1973 due to the negligence of certain employees of the appellant. At that time there was no duty upon her to serve a notice of claim upon appellant in order to maintain an action against its employees (see Bender v Jamaica Hosp., 40 NY2d 560). Therefore, as this court' held in Matter of Perez v New York City Health & Hasps. Corp. (84 AD2d 789, 790), the claimant cannot be “subject to the provisions of section 50-e of the General Municipal Law as they existed at the time of her injury. Rather, she is subject to the provisions of section 50-e as they existed at the time the duty to serve a notice of claim arose”. In this instance Special Term properly applied said provisions and granted leave to serve a late notice of claim. Damiani, J. P., Lazer, Gibbons and Rubin, JJ., concur.

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

— In a proceeding, inter alia, for leave to serve a late notice of claim upon the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation as a condition precedent to the institution of an action against employees of the corporation, the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Yoswein, J.), dated January 5,1981, which granted, inter alia, leave to serve a late notice of claim. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. The infant claimant was allegedly injured at the time of her birth in 1973 due to the negligence of certain employees of the appellant. At that time there was no duty upon her to serve a notice of claim upon appellant in order to maintain an action against its employees (see Bender v Jamaica Hosp., 40 NY2d 560). Therefore, as this court' held in Matter of Perez v New York City Health & Hasps. Corp. (84 AD2d 789, 790), the claimant cannot be “subject to the provisions of section 50-e of the General Municipal Law as they existed at the time of her injury. Rather, she is subject to the provisions of section 50-e as they existed at the time the duty to serve a notice of claim arose”. In this instance Special Term properly applied said provisions and granted leave to serve a late notice of claim. Damiani, J. P., Lazer, Gibbons and Rubin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 A.D.2d 660, 450 N.Y.S.2d 520, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16895, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodriguez-v-new-york-city-health-hospitals-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack