Thomas v. Town of Oyster Bay

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Thomas v. Town of Oyster Bay

270 A.D.2d 336, 704 N.Y.S.2d 291, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2794

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

DecidedMarch 13, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 270 A.D.2d 336 (Thomas v. Town of Oyster Bay) 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

Thomas v. Town of Oyster Bay, 270 A.D.2d 336, 704 N.Y.S.2d 291, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2794 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Town of Oyster Bay appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lock-man, J.), dated April 14, 1999, as denied that branch of its motion which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted by the plaintiff Richard Thomas and granted that branch of the plaintiffs’ cross motion which was to strike its third affirmative defense insofar as asserted against the plaintiff Richard Thomas.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

In this action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the appellant, Town of Oyster Bay, claims that the alleged lack of specificity of the notice of claim undermined its investigative efforts. The Town, however, failed to show what investigation, if any, was undertaken pursuant to the notice of claim. Therefore, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of its motion which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted by the plaintiff Richard Thomas, and granted that branch of the plaintiffs’ cross motion which was to strike its third affirmative defense insofar as asserted against Thomas (see, Mayer v Dupont Assocs., 80 AD2d 799). Ritter, J. P., Sullivan, S. Miller, Luciano and H. Miller, 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 Town of Oyster Bay appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lock-man, J.), dated April 14, 1999, as denied that branch of its motion which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted by the plaintiff Richard Thomas and granted that branch of the plaintiffs’ cross motion which was to strike its third affirmative defense insofar as asserted against the plaintiff Richard Thomas.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

In this action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the appellant, Town of Oyster Bay, claims that the alleged lack of specificity of the notice of claim undermined its investigative efforts. The Town, however, failed to show what investigation, if any, was undertaken pursuant to the notice of claim. Therefore, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of its motion which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted by the plaintiff Richard Thomas, and granted that branch of the plaintiffs’ cross motion which was to strike its third affirmative defense insofar as asserted against Thomas (see, Mayer v Dupont Assocs., 80 AD2d 799). Ritter, J. P., Sullivan, S. Miller, Luciano and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

270 A.D.2d 336, 704 N.Y.S.2d 291, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2794, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-v-town-of-oyster-bay-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack