Verley v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Verley v. City of New York

11 A.D.2d 1015, 206 N.Y.S.2d 435, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7496

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

DecidedOctober 25, 1960

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 11 A.D.2d 1015 (Verley 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

Verley v. City of New York, 11 A.D.2d 1015, 206 N.Y.S.2d 435, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7496 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered March 23, 1960, denying plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend her notice of claim and to strike out paragraph “ Third ” of defendant’s answer, unanimously reversed, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with $20 costs and disbursements to appellant, and the motion granted, with $10 costs. The written notice of claim filed by the compensation insurance carrier, which itself had a contingent interest in plaintiff’s cause of action by virtue of subdivisions 1 and 2 of section 29 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law, was sufficient also to constitute a notice of claim made for plaintiff. The city had prompt and timely notice of the plaintiff’s claim so that it could be properly investigated. In fact, the City of New York actually examined plaintiff after the filing of the notice of claim by the insurance carrier. Under the circumstances, the plaintiff should have been permitted pursuant to subdivision 6 of section 50-e of the General Municipal Law to amend the notice of claim, nunc, pro tuno, and the affirmative defense in paragraph “Third” of defendant’s answer, alleging that plaintiff had failed to comply with the provisions of [1016]*1016section 50-e of the General Municipal Law, should have been dismissed. Settle order on notice. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, McNally and Bastow, JJ.

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

Order, entered March 23, 1960, denying plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend her notice of claim and to strike out paragraph “ Third ” of defendant’s answer, unanimously reversed, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with $20 costs and disbursements to appellant, and the motion granted, with $10 costs. The written notice of claim filed by the compensation insurance carrier, which itself had a contingent interest in plaintiff’s cause of action by virtue of subdivisions 1 and 2 of section 29 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law, was sufficient also to constitute a notice of claim made for plaintiff. The city had prompt and timely notice of the plaintiff’s claim so that it could be properly investigated. In fact, the City of New York actually examined plaintiff after the filing of the notice of claim by the insurance carrier. Under the circumstances, the plaintiff should have been permitted pursuant to subdivision 6 of section 50-e of the General Municipal Law to amend the notice of claim, nunc, pro tuno, and the affirmative defense in paragraph “Third” of defendant’s answer, alleging that plaintiff had failed to comply with the provisions of [1016]*1016section 50-e of the General Municipal Law, should have been dismissed. Settle order on notice. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, McNally and Bastow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 A.D.2d 1015, 206 N.Y.S.2d 435, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7496, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/verley-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack