Tejada v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tejada v. New York City Transit Authority

220 A.D.2d 659, 632 N.Y.S.2d 658, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10663

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

DecidedOctober 23, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 220 A.D.2d 659 (Tejada 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

Tejada v. New York City Transit Authority, 220 A.D.2d 659, 632 N.Y.S.2d 658, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10663 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated May 31, 1994, which denied its motion to dismiss the complaint based on an alleged failure to serve a proper notice of claim.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the defendant’s motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

In light of the prior orders of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated March 31, 1992, and September 28, 1992, respectively, which specifically held that the defendant would be prejudiced by the plaintiffs’ proposed amendment to the notice of claim to accurately reflect the time, place, and manner in which the claim arose, we conclude that the notice of claim was insufficient (see, DAlessandro v New York City Tr. Auth., 83 NY2d 891, 893). Accordingly, the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to serve a proper notice of claim should have been granted. Mangano, P. J., Miller, Santucci and Hart, 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, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated May 31, 1994, which denied its motion to dismiss the complaint based on an alleged failure to serve a proper notice of claim.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the defendant’s motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

In light of the prior orders of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated March 31, 1992, and September 28, 1992, respectively, which specifically held that the defendant would be prejudiced by the plaintiffs’ proposed amendment to the notice of claim to accurately reflect the time, place, and manner in which the claim arose, we conclude that the notice of claim was insufficient (see, DAlessandro v New York City Tr. Auth., 83 NY2d 891, 893). Accordingly, the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to serve a proper notice of claim should have been granted. Mangano, P. J., Miller, Santucci and Hart, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

220 A.D.2d 659, 632 N.Y.S.2d 658, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10663, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tejada-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack