Simon v. Reid

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Simon v. Reid

78 A.D.2d 583, 432 N.Y.S.2d 569, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12971

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

DecidedSeptember 26, 1980

StatusPublished

This text of 78 A.D.2d 583 (Simon v. Reid) 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

Simon v. Reid, 78 A.D.2d 583, 432 N.Y.S.2d 569, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12971 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed, without costs, defendant’s motion granted and complaint dismissed; plaintiff’s cross motion denied. Memorandum: The record establishes that defendant Rome Hospital and Murphy Memorial Hospital is not an independent corporation but a department of the City of Rome. The hospital was improperly named, therefore, as a party defendant and service of process on its administrator failed to supply timely jurisdiction over the City of Rome. Furthermore, the record does not establish that the City of Rome had notice of the application to file a late notice of claim pursuant to section 50-e of the General Municipal Law, and Special Term erred therefore in granting plaintiff’s cross motion. (Appeal from order of Oneida Supreme Court—notice of claim.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Cardamone, Simons, Doerr and Moule, JJ.

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

Order unanimously reversed, without costs, defendant’s motion granted and complaint dismissed; plaintiff’s cross motion denied. Memorandum: The record establishes that defendant Rome Hospital and Murphy Memorial Hospital is not an independent corporation but a department of the City of Rome. The hospital was improperly named, therefore, as a party defendant and service of process on its administrator failed to supply timely jurisdiction over the City of Rome. Furthermore, the record does not establish that the City of Rome had notice of the application to file a late notice of claim pursuant to section 50-e of the General Municipal Law, and Special Term erred therefore in granting plaintiff’s cross motion. (Appeal from order of Oneida Supreme Court—notice of claim.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Cardamone, Simons, Doerr and Moule, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 A.D.2d 583, 432 N.Y.S.2d 569, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12971, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/simon-v-reid-nyappdiv-1980.