Stevenson v. County of Monroe

New York Court of Appeals

Stevenson v. County of Monroe

473 N.E.2d 237, 63 N.Y.2d 963, 483 N.Y.S.2d 987, 1984 N.Y. LEXIS 4735

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 13, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 473 N.E.2d 237 (Stevenson v. County of Monroe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Stevenson v. County of Monroe, 473 N.E.2d 237, 63 N.Y.2d 963, 483 N.Y.S.2d 987, 1984 N.Y. LEXIS 4735 (N.Y. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

We read the memorandum at the Appellate Division to be a substitution of its discretion for that of Special Term (cf. Matter of Von Bulow, 63 NY2d 221, 225, n). Under the circumstances of this case it cannot be said that the Appellate Division abused its discretion as a matter of law in granting the motion to file a late notice of claim. With respect to the contention that the case should be held to be moot, on the ground that the time for serving the complaint expired after the motion to file a late notice of claim was made, we would note that the running of the statute was tolled once the motion was made (Giblin v Nassau County Med. Center, 61 NY2d 67).

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Meyer, Simons and Kaye concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

We read the memorandum at the Appellate Division to be a substitution of its discretion for that of Special Term (cf. Matter of Von Bulow, 63 NY2d 221, 225, n). Under the circumstances of this case it cannot be said that the Appellate Division abused its discretion as a matter of law in granting the motion to file a late notice of claim. With respect to the contention that the case should be held to be moot, on the ground that the time for serving the complaint expired after the motion to file a late notice of claim was made, we would note that the running of the statute was tolled once the motion was made (Giblin v Nassau County Med. Center, 61 NY2d 67).

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Meyer, Simons and Kaye concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

473 N.E.2d 237, 63 N.Y.2d 963, 483 N.Y.S.2d 987, 1984 N.Y. LEXIS 4735, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stevenson-v-county-of-monroe-ny-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack