Verizon New York, Inc. v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Verizon New York, Inc. v. City of New York

26 A.D.3d 247, 808 N.Y.S.2d 551

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

DecidedFebruary 16, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 26 A.D.3d 247 (Verizon New York, Inc. v. City of New York) 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

Verizon New York, Inc. v. City of New York, 26 A.D.3d 247, 808 N.Y.S.2d 551 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

[248]*248Order, Supreme Court, New York County (William A. Wetzel, J.), entered June 7, 2005, which denied petitioner telephone company’s application for leave to serve a late notice of claim for damages to its conduit and cables allegedly caused by respondent City’s negligent excavation of a street, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Assuming in petitioner’s favor that the City’s Department of Environmental Protection had “actual knowledge of the essential facts” within the meaning of General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) by reason of its observed presence at the scene the day after the complained-of excavation repairing a ruptured water main, such knowledge is not imputable to the City itself (see Tarquinio v City of New York, 84 AD2d 265, 270-271 [1982], affd 56 NY2d 950 [1982]). We have considered petitioner’s other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Friedman, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.

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

[248]*248Order, Supreme Court, New York County (William A. Wetzel, J.), entered June 7, 2005, which denied petitioner telephone company’s application for leave to serve a late notice of claim for damages to its conduit and cables allegedly caused by respondent City’s negligent excavation of a street, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Assuming in petitioner’s favor that the City’s Department of Environmental Protection had “actual knowledge of the essential facts” within the meaning of General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) by reason of its observed presence at the scene the day after the complained-of excavation repairing a ruptured water main, such knowledge is not imputable to the City itself (see Tarquinio v City of New York, 84 AD2d 265, 270-271 [1982], affd 56 NY2d 950 [1982]). We have considered petitioner’s other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Friedman, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A.D.3d 247, 808 N.Y.S.2d 551, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/verizon-new-york-inc-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack