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

26 A.D.3d 247, 808 N.Y.S.2d 551
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 16, 2006·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

[248] Order, 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

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).

26 A.D.3d 247 (Verizon New York, Inc. v. City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Gelish v. Dix Hills Water District
19 Misc. 3d 270 (New York Supreme Court, 2008)