Thomas v. Town of Oyster Bay, 190 A.D.2d 731 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993). · Go Syfert
Search
Thomas v. Town of Oyster Bay, 190 A.D.2d 731 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
19 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Brown v. City of New York (nyappdiv, 1999-10-04)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Brown v. City of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 1999 · signal: see also · confidence low
It is well established that a complaint is properly dismissed where the plaintiff fails to identify the location of his accident in his notice of claim with sufficient particularity (see, Caselli v City of New York, 105 AD2d 251, 253 ; see also, Thomas v Town of Oyster Bay, 190 AD2d 731 ; Cappadonna v New York City Tr.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Eherts v. County of Orange
N.Y. App. Div. · 1995 · signal: see also · confidence low
It is well established that a plaintiffs’ complaint is properly dismissed where they have failed to identify with sufficient particularity the location of the accident in their notice of claim (Caselli v City of New York, 105 AD2d 251, 253 ; see also, Thomas v Town of Oyster Bay, 190 AD2d 731 ; Cappadonna v New York City Tr.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Brian J. Thomas
v.
Town of Oyster Bay
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Feb 8, 1993.
190 A.D.2d 731
1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1033
Cited by 9 opinions  |  Published

— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiif appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lockman, J.), dated December 7, 1990, as granted the cross motion of the defendant Town of Oyster Bay for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

General Municipal Law § 50-e requires that a notice of claim identify the geographical location of an accident and be served within the time specified so that the location may be investigated before conditions change and memories of relevant occurrences fade (see, Altmayer v City of New York, 149 AD2d 638; Mazza v City of New York, 112 AD2d 921; Caselli v City of New York, 105 AD2d 251). The notice of claim served herein was insufficient to accomplish its intent. Since service of a notice of claim within the time specified in General Municipal Law § 50-e is a condition precedent to the maintenance of a tort action against a municipal entity, and the notice served herein failed to specify where the alleged defect which was the gravamen of the case was located, the complaint was properly dismissed insofar as it is asserted against the Town of Oyster Bay. Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.