Tully v. Town of North Hempstead

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tully v. Town of North Hempstead

93 A.D.2d 834, 461 N.Y.S.2d 53, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17683

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

DecidedApril 11, 1983

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 93 A.D.2d 834 (Tully v. Town of North Hempstead) 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. Town of North Hempstead, 93 A.D.2d 834, 461 N.Y.S.2d 53, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17683 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Town of North Hemp-stead (the town) appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Velsor, J.), dated September 23, 1982, which denied its motion for leave to serve an amended answer. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements to plaintiff. Plaintiff has alleged, inter alia, that he was injured as the result of the town’s failure to properly regulate traffic at the intersection where the accident occurred. Under these circumstances, plaintiff was not required to comply with the notice requirements of section 65-a of the Town Law and section 26-1 of the North Hempstead Code (see Doremus v Incorporated Vil. of Lynbrook, 18 NY2d 362; see, also, Sharapata v Town oflslip, 82 AD2d 350, 362, affd 56 NY2d 332). Gibbons, J. P., Thompson, Bracken and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

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

— In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Town of North Hemp-stead (the town) appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Velsor, J.), dated September 23, 1982, which denied its motion for leave to serve an amended answer. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements to plaintiff. Plaintiff has alleged, inter alia, that he was injured as the result of the town’s failure to properly regulate traffic at the intersection where the accident occurred. Under these circumstances, plaintiff was not required to comply with the notice requirements of section 65-a of the Town Law and section 26-1 of the North Hempstead Code (see Doremus v Incorporated Vil. of Lynbrook, 18 NY2d 362; see, also, Sharapata v Town oflslip, 82 AD2d 350, 362, affd 56 NY2d 332). Gibbons, J. P., Thompson, Bracken and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

93 A.D.2d 834, 461 N.Y.S.2d 53, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17683, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tully-v-town-of-north-hempstead-nyappdiv-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack