Romuleus v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Romuleus v. City of New York

200 A.D.2d 387, 608 N.Y.S.2d 77, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 69

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

DecidedJanuary 6, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 200 A.D.2d 387 (Romuleus 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

Romuleus v. City of New York, 200 A.D.2d 387, 608 N.Y.S.2d 77, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 69 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lewis Friedman, J.), entered April 7, 1992, which granted defendant New York City Housing Authority’s motion for summary judgment, and denied plaintiffs cross motion for leave to serve an amended summons and complaint and an amended notice of claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court properly granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint because defendant was prejudiced by plaintiffs failure to timely amend her notice of claim and her complaint for over two years after the date of the underlying accident (see, Caselli v City of New York, 105 AD2d 251; see also, O’Hara v Tidewater Oil Co., 23 AD2d 870). Prejudice to the defendant was properly inferred by the IAS Court from the magnitude of the defect in the original papers in this case, resulting in defendant’s inability to locate the site of the accident. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Rosenberger and Wallach, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lewis Friedman, J.), entered April 7, 1992, which granted defendant New York City Housing Authority’s motion for summary judgment, and denied plaintiffs cross motion for leave to serve an amended summons and complaint and an amended notice of claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court properly granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint because defendant was prejudiced by plaintiffs failure to timely amend her notice of claim and her complaint for over two years after the date of the underlying accident (see, Caselli v City of New York, 105 AD2d 251; see also, O’Hara v Tidewater Oil Co., 23 AD2d 870). Prejudice to the defendant was properly inferred by the IAS Court from the magnitude of the defect in the original papers in this case, resulting in defendant’s inability to locate the site of the accident. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Rosenberger and Wallach, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

200 A.D.2d 387, 608 N.Y.S.2d 77, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 69, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/romuleus-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack