Weiss v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Weiss v. City of New York

136 A.D.3d 575, 25 N.Y.S.3d 210

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

DecidedFebruary 23, 2016

Docket294 21372/12

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 136 A.D.3d 575 (Weiss 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

Weiss v. City of New York, 136 A.D.3d 575, 25 N.Y.S.3d 210 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard H. Sherman, J.), entered January 23, 2014, which, inter alia, denied the motion of defendants City of New York, New York City Department of Correction and New York City Department of Environmental Protection (collectively City) to dismiss the complaint and cross claims as against them pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) and/or CPLR 3212, and granted plaintiff’s cross motion for leave to amend the notice of claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly determined that the original notice of claim, together with the photographs provided by plaintiff showing broken cement barriers strewn over the sidewalk and roadway at the accident location, sufficiently set forth the location and manner of his accident to satisfy the requirements of General Municipal Law § 50-e (2), since they provided “information sufficient to enable the city to investigate the claim” (O’Brien v City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d 353, 358 [1981]; see also Green v City of New York, 106 AD3d 453 [1st Dept 2013]). The amended notice of claim, clarifying the location and manner of the alleged accident, was properly permitted pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (6), since the City did not show any prejudice, or assert that plaintiff acted in bad faith (see Goodwin v New York City Hous. Auth., 42 AD3d 63 [1st Dept 2007]).

Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, Moskowitz and Richter, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard H. Sherman, J.), entered January 23, 2014, which, inter alia, denied the motion of defendants City of New York, New York City Department of Correction and New York City Department of Environmental Protection (collectively City) to dismiss the complaint and cross claims as against them pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) and/or CPLR 3212, and granted plaintiff’s cross motion for leave to amend the notice of claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly determined that the original notice of claim, together with the photographs provided by plaintiff showing broken cement barriers strewn over the sidewalk and roadway at the accident location, sufficiently set forth the location and manner of his accident to satisfy the requirements of General Municipal Law § 50-e (2), since they provided “information sufficient to enable the city to investigate the claim” (O’Brien v City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d 353, 358 [1981]; see also Green v City of New York, 106 AD3d 453 [1st Dept 2013]). The amended notice of claim, clarifying the location and manner of the alleged accident, was properly permitted pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (6), since the City did not show any prejudice, or assert that plaintiff acted in bad faith (see Goodwin v New York City Hous. Auth., 42 AD3d 63 [1st Dept 2007]).

Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, Moskowitz and Richter, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

136 A.D.3d 575, 25 N.Y.S.3d 210, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weiss-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack