Williams v. Mahoney

Second Circuit

Williams v. Mahoney

41 F. App'x 519

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedAugust 15, 2002

DocketDocket No. 01-7915

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 41 F. App'x 519 (Williams v. Mahoney) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Williams v. Mahoney, 41 F. App'x 519 (2d Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the order of the district court be AFFIRMED.

Plaintiff-Appellant Donald Williams appeals from an order entered in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Mishler, J.) dismissing his pendent New York state law claims for failure to serve a notice of claim on Defendants Appellees as required by New York law. See N.Y. Gen. Mun. §§ 50-e, 50-i. Williams argues on appeal that his first summons and complaint should be construed as satisfying the notice of claim requirement. This argument is foreclosed by binding state court precedent. See Davidson v. Bronx Mun. Hosp., 64 N.Y.2d 59, 484 N.Y.S.2d 533, 473 N.E.2d 761 (1984).

For the reasons set forth above, the order of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.

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

SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the order of the district court be AFFIRMED.

Plaintiff-Appellant Donald Williams appeals from an order entered in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Mishler, J.) dismissing his pendent New York state law claims for failure to serve a notice of claim on Defendants Appellees as required by New York law. See N.Y. Gen. Mun. §§ 50-e, 50-i. Williams argues on appeal that his first summons and complaint should be construed as satisfying the notice of claim requirement. This argument is foreclosed by binding state court precedent. See Davidson v. Bronx Mun. Hosp., 64 N.Y.2d 59, 484 N.Y.S.2d 533, 473 N.E.2d 761 (1984).

For the reasons set forth above, the order of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 F. App'x 519, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-mahoney-ca2-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack