Shaw v. City of Mount Vernon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Shaw v. City of Mount Vernon

9 A.D.3d 423, 779 N.Y.S.2d 782, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9856

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

DecidedJuly 19, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 9 A.D.3d 423 (Shaw v. City of Mount Vernon) 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

Shaw v. City of Mount Vernon, 9 A.D.3d 423, 779 N.Y.S.2d 782, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9856 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for false arrest and imprisonment, malicious prosecution, deprivation of civil rights, battery, and slander, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (DiBlasi, J.), dated September 3, 2003, which granted the defendants’ oral application for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for failure to serve a timely notice of claim.

Ordered that on the Court’s own motion, the appellant’s notice of appeal is treated as an application for leave to appeal, and leave to appeal is granted (see CELR 5701 [c]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the oral application is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

The defendant failed to establish that the notice of claim was [424]*424untimely served (see Gonzalez v Board of Educ. of City of Yonkers, 298 AD2d 358 [2002]). Altman, J.P., Goldstein, Schmidt, Cozier and Skelos, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for false arrest and imprisonment, malicious prosecution, deprivation of civil rights, battery, and slander, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (DiBlasi, J.), dated September 3, 2003, which granted the defendants’ oral application for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for failure to serve a timely notice of claim.

Ordered that on the Court’s own motion, the appellant’s notice of appeal is treated as an application for leave to appeal, and leave to appeal is granted (see CELR 5701 [c]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the oral application is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

The defendant failed to establish that the notice of claim was [424]*424untimely served (see Gonzalez v Board of Educ. of City of Yonkers, 298 AD2d 358 [2002]). Altman, J.P., Goldstein, Schmidt, Cozier and Skelos, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 A.D.3d 423, 779 N.Y.S.2d 782, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9856, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shaw-v-city-of-mount-vernon-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack