Teubner v. O'Connell

New York Supreme Court

Teubner v. O'Connell

50 Misc. 2d 633, 270 N.Y.S.2d 978, 1966 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2163

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 24, 1966

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 50 Misc. 2d 633 (Teubner v. O'Connell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Teubner v. O'Connell, 50 Misc. 2d 633, 270 N.Y.S.2d 978, 1966 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2163 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

William B. Lawless, J.

Petitioner seeks an order permitting her to serve a late notice of claim pursuant to subdivision 5 of section 50-e of the General Municipal Law, or in the alternative, for an order that the claimant be excused from complying with section 50-e of the said General Municipal Laiv.

Proof was taken on the contention made by the petitioner that writings by an authorized representative of the respondent were made and therefore this court may exercise discretion and grant leave to serve notice of claim after the expiration of the 90-day rule.

. On the hearing, petitioner established that a stenographic statement was taken in the hospital from Nancy S. Teubner, a hand-written statement was signed by Miss Teubner and that a medical authorization form was signed by her.

We believe that these writings and oral statements of respondents’agents gave the petitioner “ reasonable assurance * * * that procedures were proceeding toward settlement of her claim”. (Latragna v. Brighton School Dist. No. 1, 2 Misc 2d 467; Matter of Daley v. Greece Cent. School Dist., 21 A D 2d 976; Debes v. Monroe County Water Auth., 16 A D 2d 381; Matter of Brummer v. County of Erie, 20 A D 2d 627.) From the foregoing we are convinced that the petitioner has established the right to bring an action against the respondents on the theory of estoppel, and upon the proof presented, we find that the respondents are estopped from contending that the notice requirements of the General Municipal Law serve as a defense to late, filing.

We therefore excuse the petitioner from complying with section 50-e of the General Municipal Law, Submit order.

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

William B. Lawless, J.

Petitioner seeks an order permitting her to serve a late notice of claim pursuant to subdivision 5 of section 50-e of the General Municipal Law, or in the alternative, for an order that the claimant be excused from complying with section 50-e of the said General Municipal Laiv.

Proof was taken on the contention made by the petitioner that writings by an authorized representative of the respondent were made and therefore this court may exercise discretion and grant leave to serve notice of claim after the expiration of the 90-day rule.

. On the hearing, petitioner established that a stenographic statement was taken in the hospital from Nancy S. Teubner, a hand-written statement was signed by Miss Teubner and that a medical authorization form was signed by her.

We believe that these writings and oral statements of respondents’agents gave the petitioner “ reasonable assurance * * * that procedures were proceeding toward settlement of her claim”. (Latragna v. Brighton School Dist. No. 1, 2 Misc 2d 467; Matter of Daley v. Greece Cent. School Dist., 21 A D 2d 976; Debes v. Monroe County Water Auth., 16 A D 2d 381; Matter of Brummer v. County of Erie, 20 A D 2d 627.) From the foregoing we are convinced that the petitioner has established the right to bring an action against the respondents on the theory of estoppel, and upon the proof presented, we find that the respondents are estopped from contending that the notice requirements of the General Municipal Law serve as a defense to late, filing.

We therefore excuse the petitioner from complying with section 50-e of the General Municipal Law, Submit order.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 Misc. 2d 633, 270 N.Y.S.2d 978, 1966 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2163, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/teubner-v-oconnell-nysupct-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack