Tully v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tully v. New York City Transit Authority

180 A.D.2d 566, 580 N.Y.S.2d 268, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2714

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

DecidedFebruary 25, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 180 A.D.2d 566 (Tully 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

Tully v. New York City Transit Authority, 180 A.D.2d 566, 580 N.Y.S.2d 268, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2714 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Baer, Jr., J.), entered February 7, 1991, which denied petitioner’s application to file a late notice of claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner alleges that on January 3, 1990 he slipped on a bottle and fell down subway steps at the 50th Street and 7th Avenue station, that the area was one where the homeless were permitted to congregate, and spread debris, causing a hazard for pedestrians, and that due to two herniated discs sustained in the accident, he was unable to give notice of the occurrence until he made the instant application on or about September 11, 1990, some nine months after the occurrence. The Transit Authority had no notice of the incident until receipt of petitioner’s motion papers. We affirm solely on the ground that the delay substantially prejudices respondent’s defense on the merits (General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Kupferman and Smith, JJ.

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

Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Baer, Jr., J.), entered February 7, 1991, which denied petitioner’s application to file a late notice of claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner alleges that on January 3, 1990 he slipped on a bottle and fell down subway steps at the 50th Street and 7th Avenue station, that the area was one where the homeless were permitted to congregate, and spread debris, causing a hazard for pedestrians, and that due to two herniated discs sustained in the accident, he was unable to give notice of the occurrence until he made the instant application on or about September 11, 1990, some nine months after the occurrence. The Transit Authority had no notice of the incident until receipt of petitioner’s motion papers. We affirm solely on the ground that the delay substantially prejudices respondent’s defense on the merits (General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Kupferman and Smith, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

180 A.D.2d 566, 580 N.Y.S.2d 268, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2714, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tully-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack