Di Bartolo v. City of New York, 267 A.D. 351 (N.Y. App. Div. 1944). · Go Syfert
Search
Di Bartolo v. City of New York, 267 A.D. 351 (N.Y. App. Div. 1944). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
1 citation event across 1 distinct court.
How cited ↗
Cited for

No citing cases on record.

Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Lucia Di Bartolo
v.
City of New York
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jan 28, 1944.
Published opinion
267 A.D. 351
1944 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4722
Robert J. Keegan, Jr., of counsel (Murray Sendler with him on the brief; Ignatius M. Wilkinson, Corf oration Counsel), for appellant., Harry Fieldsteel of counsel (Rao, Liggio & Cannella, attorneys), for respondents.
Martik.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

Lead Opinion

Per Curiam.

There was full compliance with section 394a-l.Q of the Administrative Code of the City of New York (L. 1937, ch. 929). To the extent that the defendant relies on the stipulation of the parties to establish that the action is premature, it was incumbent on the defendant to plead that special agreement in its answer as an affirmative defense.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Dissent

Martik, P. J.

(dissenting). This action has been prematurely instituted and the complaint should be dismissed. (Casey v. City of New York, 217 N. Y. 192; Johannes v. City of New York, 257 App. Div. 197, affd. 281 N. Y. 825; and Collins v. City of New York, 257 App. Div. 988.)

[*353] Townley, TTntebmyeb, Dobe and Callahan, JJ., concur in Per Curiam opinion; Mastín, P. J., dissents in memorandum.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.