Shavulskaya v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Shavulskaya v. New York City Transit Authority

41 A.D.3d 462, 835 N.Y.S.2d 904

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

DecidedJune 5, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 41 A.D.3d 462 (Shavulskaya v. New York City Transit Authority) 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

Shavulskaya v. New York City Transit Authority, 41 A.D.3d 462, 835 N.Y.S.2d 904 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Martin, J.), dated March 15, 2006, which denied its motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to comply with General Municipal Law § 50-e (2).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to comply with General Municipal Law § 50-e (2) is granted.

The plaintiffs notice of claim did not substantially comply with the requirements of General Municipal Law § 50-e (2), in that it failed to set forth “the nature of the claim” and “the manner in which the claim arose” (General Municipal Law § 50-e [2]). Moreover, the notice of claim set forth theories of liability which are substantially different from the theories advanced at the plaintiffs General Municipal Law § 50-h hearing and in her complaint and bill of particulars. “Amendments of a substantive nature are not within the purview of General Municipal Law § 50-e (6)” (Carter v City of New York, 38 AD3d 702, 703 [2007]). Under the circumstances, the court should have granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to comply with General Municipal Law § 50-e (2). Rivera, J.P., Spolzino, Fisher, Lifson and Dickerson, 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 defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Martin, J.), dated March 15, 2006, which denied its motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to comply with General Municipal Law § 50-e (2).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to comply with General Municipal Law § 50-e (2) is granted.

The plaintiffs notice of claim did not substantially comply with the requirements of General Municipal Law § 50-e (2), in that it failed to set forth “the nature of the claim” and “the manner in which the claim arose” (General Municipal Law § 50-e [2]). Moreover, the notice of claim set forth theories of liability which are substantially different from the theories advanced at the plaintiffs General Municipal Law § 50-h hearing and in her complaint and bill of particulars. “Amendments of a substantive nature are not within the purview of General Municipal Law § 50-e (6)” (Carter v City of New York, 38 AD3d 702, 703 [2007]). Under the circumstances, the court should have granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to comply with General Municipal Law § 50-e (2). Rivera, J.P., Spolzino, Fisher, Lifson and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 A.D.3d 462, 835 N.Y.S.2d 904, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shavulskaya-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack