Sandifer v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sandifer v. City of New York

30 A.D.2d 979, 295 N.Y.S.2d 25, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3071

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

DecidedOctober 28, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 30 A.D.2d 979 (Sandifer 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

Sandifer v. City of New York, 30 A.D.2d 979, 295 N.Y.S.2d 25, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3071 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding under section 50-e of the General Municipal Law for leave to amend a notice of claim dated July 7, 1967 by setting forth that the date of the subject accident was March 31, 1967 instead of April 30, 1967 and to further permit the filing thereof nunc pro tunc as of June 29, 1967, the City of New York appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated January 3, 1968, which granted the application. Order reversed, on the law and the facts, with $10 costs and disbursements, and application denied, without costs. The affidavits submitted in support of the application disclose that the failure to serve the notice of claim within the 90-day period prescribed by statute was not by reason of the fact that the claimant was mentally or physically incapacitated but was due rather to inadvertence on his part and the fact that his attorney was misinformed as to the date of the accident (Matter of Gugliotto v. City of Neto York, 10 A D 2d 986, affd. 9 N Y 2d 738). Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Hopkins, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding under section 50-e of the General Municipal Law for leave to amend a notice of claim dated July 7, 1967 by setting forth that the date of the subject accident was March 31, 1967 instead of April 30, 1967 and to further permit the filing thereof nunc pro tunc as of June 29, 1967, the City of New York appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated January 3, 1968, which granted the application. Order reversed, on the law and the facts, with $10 costs and disbursements, and application denied, without costs. The affidavits submitted in support of the application disclose that the failure to serve the notice of claim within the 90-day period prescribed by statute was not by reason of the fact that the claimant was mentally or physically incapacitated but was due rather to inadvertence on his part and the fact that his attorney was misinformed as to the date of the accident (Matter of Gugliotto v. City of Neto York, 10 A D 2d 986, affd. 9 N Y 2d 738). Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Hopkins, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.2d 979, 295 N.Y.S.2d 25, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3071, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sandifer-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1968.