Tiburcio v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tiburcio v. New York City Transit Authority

270 A.D.2d 110, 704 N.Y.S.2d 473, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2847

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

DecidedMarch 16, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 270 A.D.2d 110 (Tiburcio 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

Tiburcio v. New York City Transit Authority, 270 A.D.2d 110, 704 N.Y.S.2d 473, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2847 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered January 26, 1999, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs notice of claim was defective since it did not provide defendant with notice of plaintiffs theory of liability, first advanced in plaintiffs deposition more than a year after the accident, that she slipped and fell on subway steps as a result of the absence of a metal tread (see, Chipurnoi v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 216 AD2d 171). Since plaintiff was attempting to amend her notice of claim by serving an amended bill of particulars that included this new theory (see, Herron v City of New York, 223 AD2d 676), and the one-year and 90-day limitation period had passed, the IAS Court properly granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint (supra). Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Rosenberger, Mazzarelli, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered January 26, 1999, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs notice of claim was defective since it did not provide defendant with notice of plaintiffs theory of liability, first advanced in plaintiffs deposition more than a year after the accident, that she slipped and fell on subway steps as a result of the absence of a metal tread (see, Chipurnoi v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 216 AD2d 171). Since plaintiff was attempting to amend her notice of claim by serving an amended bill of particulars that included this new theory (see, Herron v City of New York, 223 AD2d 676), and the one-year and 90-day limitation period had passed, the IAS Court properly granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint (supra). Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Rosenberger, Mazzarelli, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

270 A.D.2d 110, 704 N.Y.S.2d 473, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2847, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tiburcio-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack