Santos v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Santos v. City of New York

38 A.D.3d 302, 830 N.Y.S.2d 660

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

DecidedMarch 13, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 38 A.D.3d 302 (Santos 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

Santos v. City of New York, 38 A.D.3d 302, 830 N.Y.S.2d 660 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth L. Thompson, Jr., J.), entered November 3, 2005, which granted defendants’ motion to the extent of dismissing the second and fifth through eighth causes of action in the complaint, unanimously modified, on the law, the second cause of action reinstated insofar as it applies to the decedent’s conscious pain and suffering on June 9, 1997, dismissal of the eighth cause of action vacated with leave to replead that cause, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Defendants concede that plaintiffs notice of claim was timely as to her decedent’s pain and suffering on the date of his death. We modify to reinstate that portion of the second cause of action, and affirm the dismissal of any earlier claims as untimely (see Jae Woo Yoo v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 239 AD2d 267 [1997]). We further modify to vacate the dismissal of the eighth cause of action under 42 USC § 1983, and grant plaintiff leave to replead that cause in light of defendants’ failure to provide requested discovery regarding their customs, policies and procedures.

[303]*303We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Marlow, Buckley, Sweeny and Kavanagh, 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 November 3, 2005, which granted defendants’ motion to the extent of dismissing the second and fifth through eighth causes of action in the complaint, unanimously modified, on the law, the second cause of action reinstated insofar as it applies to the decedent’s conscious pain and suffering on June 9, 1997, dismissal of the eighth cause of action vacated with leave to replead that cause, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Defendants concede that plaintiffs notice of claim was timely as to her decedent’s pain and suffering on the date of his death. We modify to reinstate that portion of the second cause of action, and affirm the dismissal of any earlier claims as untimely (see Jae Woo Yoo v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 239 AD2d 267 [1997]). We further modify to vacate the dismissal of the eighth cause of action under 42 USC § 1983, and grant plaintiff leave to replead that cause in light of defendants’ failure to provide requested discovery regarding their customs, policies and procedures.

[303]*303We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Marlow, Buckley, Sweeny and Kavanagh, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A.D.3d 302, 830 N.Y.S.2d 660, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/santos-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack