Roman v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Roman v. City of New York

304 A.D.2d 741, 757 N.Y.S.2d 770

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

DecidedApril 21, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 304 A.D.2d 741 (Roman 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

Roman v. City of New York, 304 A.D.2d 741, 757 N.Y.S.2d 770 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (M. Garson, J.), dated May 21, 2002, which denied her motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim and granted the cross motion of the defendant City of New York to dismiss the action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

[742]*742The denial of the plaintiffs motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim was a provident exercise of discretion (see DeAngelis v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 281 AD2d 448, 449 [2001]; Matter of Landa v City of New York, 252 AD2d 525 [1998]).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. S. Miller, J.P., Goldstein, McGinity and Mastro, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (M. Garson, J.), dated May 21, 2002, which denied her motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim and granted the cross motion of the defendant City of New York to dismiss the action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

[742]*742The denial of the plaintiffs motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim was a provident exercise of discretion (see DeAngelis v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 281 AD2d 448, 449 [2001]; Matter of Landa v City of New York, 252 AD2d 525 [1998]).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. S. Miller, J.P., Goldstein, McGinity and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

304 A.D.2d 741, 757 N.Y.S.2d 770, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roman-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack