Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
34 New York opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2015 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Delaney v. Town of Islipgreen2 sentences2013Although the notice of claim incorrectly stated that the incident occurred at approximately 2:00 p.m. rather than at 1:15 p.m., the record does not disclose that this error was a result of bad faith on the part of the plaintiff, or that the Transit Authority suffered any prejudice as a result of the error (see Delaney v Town of lslip, 63 AD3d 658, 660 [2009]; Kim L. v Port Jervis City School Dist., 40 AD3d 1042, 1044-1045 [2007]; Power v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Operating Auth., 16 AD3d at 656 ). 2013Although the notice of claim incorrectly stated that the incident occurred at approximately 2:00 p.m. rather than at 1:15 p.m., the record does not disclose that this error was a result of bad faith on the part of the plaintiff, or that the Transit Authority suffered any prejudice as a result of the error (see Delaney v Town of lslip, 63 AD3d 658, 660 [2009]; Kim L. v Port Jervis City School Dist., 40 AD3d 1042, 1044-1045 [2007]; Power v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Operating Auth., 16 AD3d at 656 ). | 2 | 2 |
Gabriel v. City of New Yorkgreen2 sentences2013In support of its motion, the City established, prima facie, that the theories of liability alleged in the complaint were not included in the plaintiffs notice of claim (see O’Brien v City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d at 358 ; Gabriel v City of New York, 89 AD3d 982, 983 [2011]; Santoro v Town of Smithtown, 40 AD3d at 737 ; Monmasterio v New York City Hous. 2013In support of its motion, the City established, prima facie, that the theories of liability alleged in the complaint were not included in the plaintiffs notice of claim (see O’Brien v City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d at 358 ; Gabriel v City of New York, 89 AD3d 982, 983 [2011]; Santoro v Town of Smithtown, 40 AD3d at 737 ; Monmasterio v New York City Hous. | 2 | 2 |
Kravatz v. County of Suffolkgreen2 sentences2013Although the notice of claim incorrectly stated that the incident occurred at approximately 2:00 p.m. rather than at 1:15 p.m., the record does not disclose that this error was a result of bad faith on the part of the plaintiff, or that the Transit Authority suffered any prejudice as a result of the error (see Delaney v Town of lslip, 63 AD3d 658, 660 [2009]; Kim L. v Port Jervis City School Dist., 40 AD3d 1042, 1044-1045 [2007]; Power v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Operating Auth., 16 AD3d at 656 ). 2013Although the notice of claim incorrectly stated that the incident occurred at approximately 2:00 p.m. rather than at 1:15 p.m., the record does not disclose that this error was a result of bad faith on the part of the plaintiff, or that the Transit Authority suffered any prejudice as a result of the error (see Delaney v Town of lslip, 63 AD3d 658, 660 [2009]; Kim L. v Port Jervis City School Dist., 40 AD3d 1042, 1044-1045 [2007]; Power v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Operating Auth., 16 AD3d at 656 ). | 2 | 2 |
Mahase v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authoritygreen2 sentences2012Operating Auth., 3 AD3d 410, 411 [2004]). 2012Operating Auth., 3 AD3d 410, 411 [2004]). | 2 | 2 |
Scott v. City of New Yorkgreen2 sentences2012It is well settled that a plaintiff may not use a bill of particulars or supplemental bill of particulars to assert new theories of liability against a municipal defendant if such theories were not raised in the plaintiffs notice of claim and the plaintiff is time-barred from serving a late notice of claim under General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) (see Semprini v Village of Southampton, 48 AD3d 543, 544 [2008]; Scott v City of New York, 40 AD3d 408, 410 [2007]; Mahase v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. 2012It is well settled that a plaintiff may not use a bill of particulars or supplemental bill of particulars to assert new theories of liability against a municipal defendant if such theories were not raised in the plaintiffs notice of claim and the plaintiff is time-barred from serving a late notice of claim under General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) (see Semprini v Village of Southampton, 48 AD3d 543, 544 [2008]; Scott v City of New York, 40 AD3d 408, 410 [2007]; Mahase v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. | 2 | 2 |
Semprini v. Village of Southamptongreen2 sentences2012It is well settled that a plaintiff may not use a bill of particulars or supplemental bill of particulars to assert new theories of liability against a municipal defendant if such theories were not raised in the plaintiffs notice of claim and the plaintiff is time-barred from serving a late notice of claim under General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) (see Semprini v Village of Southampton, 48 AD3d 543, 544 [2008]; Scott v City of New York, 40 AD3d 408, 410 [2007]; Mahase v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. 2012It is well settled that a plaintiff may not use a bill of particulars or supplemental bill of particulars to assert new theories of liability against a municipal defendant if such theories were not raised in the plaintiffs notice of claim and the plaintiff is time-barred from serving a late notice of claim under General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) (see Semprini v Village of Southampton, 48 AD3d 543, 544 [2008]; Scott v City of New York, 40 AD3d 408, 410 [2007]; Mahase v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. | 2 | 2 |
Santoro v. Town of Smithtowngreen2 sentences2013In support of its motion, the City established, prima facie, that the theories of liability alleged in the complaint were not included in the plaintiffs notice of claim (see O’Brien v City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d at 358 ; Gabriel v City of New York, 89 AD3d 982, 983 [2011]; Santoro v Town of Smithtown, 40 AD3d at 737 ; Monmasterio v New York City Hous. 2013In support of its motion, the City established, prima facie, that the theories of liability alleged in the complaint were not included in the plaintiffs notice of claim (see O’Brien v City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d at 358 ; Gabriel v City of New York, 89 AD3d 982, 983 [2011]; Santoro v Town of Smithtown, 40 AD3d at 737 ; Monmasterio v New York City Hous. | 1 | 3 |
O'Brien v. City of Syracusegreen2 sentences2013In support of its motion, the City established, prima facie, that the theories of liability alleged in the complaint were not included in the plaintiffs notice of claim (see O’Brien v City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d at 358 ; Gabriel v City of New York, 89 AD3d 982, 983 [2011]; Santoro v Town of Smithtown, 40 AD3d at 737 ; Monmasterio v New York City Hous. 2013In support of its motion, the City established, prima facie, that the theories of liability alleged in the complaint were not included in the plaintiffs notice of claim (see O’Brien v City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d at 358 ; Gabriel v City of New York, 89 AD3d 982, 983 [2011]; Santoro v Town of Smithtown, 40 AD3d at 737 ; Monmasterio v New York City Hous. | 1 | 3 |
Brown v. City of New Yorkgreen1 sentence2015The purpose of the notice of claim is “[t]o enable authorities to investigate, collect evidence and evaluate the merit of a claim” (Brown v City of New York, 95 NY2d 389, 392 [2000]). | 1 | 1 |
Velho v. Village of Sleepy Hollowgreen2 sentences2015The assistant testified that her search of the Town’s records maintained by the Town Clerk revealed no prior written notice of a defective condition, as was alleged in the plaintiffs notice of claim, on the sidewalk where the accident occurred (see Gorman v Town of Huntington, 12 NY3d at 280 ; Amabile v City of Buffalo, 93 NY2d at 474 ; Velho v Village of Sleepy Hollow, 119 AD3d 551, 552 [2014]). 2015Moreover, the Town also submitted an affidavit from an administrative aide to the Town’s Commissioner of Public Works, who averred that she searched the records maintained by the Department of Public Works and found that there was no prior written notice of the subject defect in those records (see Gorman v Town of Huntington, 12 NY3d at 280 ; Amabile v City of Buffalo, 93 NY2d at 474 ; Velho v Village of Sleepy Hollow, 119 AD3d at 552 ). | 1 | 1 |
Chamberlain v. City of White Plainsgreen1 sentence2014Specifically, the notice of claim stated, in part, that “[t]he claim arose on June 15, 2011 at the claimants’ home at 374 North Avenue in New Rochelle, New York, approximately 3:00 p.m., when Cristal Scott, was seized, detained, handcuffed and verbally abused by New Rochelle Police Officers . . . . 15 Armed New Rochelle Police Officers entered plaintiff’s apartment while she was not allowed to get dressed.” The identity of the officers involved in the alleged incident complained of by the plaintiff were readily accessible to the defendants insofar as the plaintiff gave a detailed description o | 1 | 1 |
Manns v. New York City Transit Authoritygreen1 sentence2012Auth., 50 AD3d 860, 861 [2008]; Monmasterio v New York City Hous. | 1 | 1 |
Malcolm v. City of New Yorkgreen1 sentence2009Since the defendants failed to state that they attempted to conduct any investigation, no prejudice was demonstrated due to the allegedly defective notice of claim (see Malcolm v City of New York, 2 AD3d 696, 697 [2003]). | 1 | 1 |
| Sebastian v. State of NYgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Kovit v. Estate of Hallumsgreen | 1 | 1 |
Lauer v. City of New Yorkgreen1 sentence2008Specifically, the plaintiffs notice of claim states that after the subway train “suddenly stopped[,] passengers were forced[ ] by employees of the [NYCTA] to exit the train in between stops along said train track.” The complaint similarly alleges that after the subway train stopped, “the [NYCTA’s] servants, agents, and/or employees removed passengers, including the Plaintiff, from the ‘Q’ train onto the elevated rails.” The complaint also alleges that the NYCTA “was negligent [in] failing to properly assist and aid the Plaintiff after removing the Plaintiff from the train and placing her on th | 1 | 1 |
| Miller v. State of New Yorkgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Mollerson v. City of New Yorkgreen | 1 | 1 |
Clune v. Garden City Union Free School Districtgreen1 sentence2008Inasmuch as the plaintiff could not allege in his complaint that a written verified claim had been presented to the Board of Education of Roosevelt Union Free School District within three months of its accrual, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint (see Clune v Garden City Union Free School Dist., 34 AD3d 618, 619-620 [2006]). | 1 | 1 |
Roland v. Nassau County Department of Social Servicesgreen1 sentence2008Under the particular circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the plaintiffs motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim or, in the alternative, to deem the notice of claim dated November 3, 2006, timely served (see Matter of Roland v Nassau County Dept. of Social Servs., 35 AD3d 477, 478 [2006]; Matter of Belenky v Nassau Community Coll., 4 AD3d 422 [2004]). | 1 | 1 |
| Abraham v. City of New Yorkgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Kenavan v. City of New Yorkgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Fendig v. City of New Yorkgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Caselli v. City of New York
green
2 sentences2002The plaintiffs notice of claim did not comply with General Municipal Law § 50-e (2), because it failed to identify the location of the accident with sufficient particularity to enable the respondent City of New York to locate the alleged defect and conduct a meaningful investigation (see Ames v City of New York, 280 AD2d 625, 626 ; Wai Man Hui v Town of Oyster Bay, 267 AD2d 233, 234 ; Yankana v City of New York, 246 AD2d 645, 646 ; Caselli v City of New York, 105 AD2d 251, 252-253 ). 1990This notice was patently insufficient with respect to setting forth the place where the claim arose with adequate specificity (see, General Municipal Law § 50-e [2]; Caselli v City of New York, 105 AD2d 251 ; Cruz v City of New York, 95 AD2d 790 ; see also, Fendig v City of New York, 132 AD2d 520 ). | 3 | 1988–2002 |
Power v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Operating Authority
green
2 sentences2013Although the notice of claim incorrectly stated that the incident occurred at approximately 2:00 p.m. rather than at 1:15 p.m., the record does not disclose that this error was a result of bad faith on the part of the plaintiff, or that the Transit Authority suffered any prejudice as a result of the error (see Delaney v Town of lslip, 63 AD3d 658, 660 [2009]; Kim L. v Port Jervis City School Dist., 40 AD3d 1042, 1044-1045 [2007]; Power v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Operating Auth., 16 AD3d at 656 ). 2013Although the notice of claim incorrectly stated that the incident occurred at approximately 2:00 p.m. rather than at 1:15 p.m., the record does not disclose that this error was a result of bad faith on the part of the plaintiff, or that the Transit Authority suffered any prejudice as a result of the error (see Delaney v Town of lslip, 63 AD3d 658, 660 [2009]; Kim L. v Port Jervis City School Dist., 40 AD3d 1042, 1044-1045 [2007]; Power v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Operating Auth., 16 AD3d at 656 ). | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Monmasterio v. New York City Housing Authority
green
2 sentences2013Auth., 39 AD3d at 356 ). 2013Auth., 39 AD3d at 356 ). | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Gorman v. Town of Huntington
green
2 sentences2015The assistant testified that her search of the Town’s records maintained by the Town Clerk revealed no prior written notice of a defective condition, as was alleged in the plaintiffs notice of claim, on the sidewalk where the accident occurred (see Gorman v Town of Huntington, 12 NY3d at 280 ; Amabile v City of Buffalo, 93 NY2d at 474 ; Velho v Village of Sleepy Hollow, 119 AD3d 551, 552 [2014]). 2015Moreover, the Town also submitted an affidavit from an administrative aide to the Town’s Commissioner of Public Works, who averred that she searched the records maintained by the Department of Public Works and found that there was no prior written notice of the subject defect in those records (see Gorman v Town of Huntington, 12 NY3d at 280 ; Amabile v City of Buffalo, 93 NY2d at 474 ; Velho v Village of Sleepy Hollow, 119 AD3d at 552 ). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Amabile v. City of Buffalo
green
2 sentences2015The assistant testified that her search of the Town’s records maintained by the Town Clerk revealed no prior written notice of a defective condition, as was alleged in the plaintiffs notice of claim, on the sidewalk where the accident occurred (see Gorman v Town of Huntington, 12 NY3d at 280 ; Amabile v City of Buffalo, 93 NY2d at 474 ; Velho v Village of Sleepy Hollow, 119 AD3d 551, 552 [2014]). 2015Moreover, the Town also submitted an affidavit from an administrative aide to the Town’s Commissioner of Public Works, who averred that she searched the records maintained by the Department of Public Works and found that there was no prior written notice of the subject defect in those records (see Gorman v Town of Huntington, 12 NY3d at 280 ; Amabile v City of Buffalo, 93 NY2d at 474 ; Velho v Village of Sleepy Hollow, 119 AD3d at 552 ). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Decoteau v. City of New York
green
1 sentence2015Dist. of City of N.Y., 104 AD3d 666 [2013]; Decoteau v City of New York, 97 AD3d 527 [2012]). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Robinson v. Board of Education
green
1 sentence2015Dist. of City of N.Y., 104 AD3d 666 [2013]; Decoteau v City of New York, 97 AD3d 527 [2012]). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Katsiouras v. City of New York
green
1 sentence2015Thus, the plaintiffs notice of claim was a nullity, since it was served late, without leave of the Supreme Court (see Matter of Katsiouras v City of New York, 106 AD3d 916 [2013]; Robinson v Board of Educ. of City Sch. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Dillon v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority
neutral
1 sentence2014On the issue of the change of address of the location at trial, the Appellate Division stated, “the change of location of the accident was not itself substantive.” ( 117 AD3d at 587 .) In Dillon , the plaintiffs notice of claim stated that she was injured while disembarking from defendant’s number 9 bus in Bronx County “in the vicinity of Eastchester Road directly opposite The Albert Einstein Medical Center” ( 182 AD2d at 553 ). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
82 Retail LLC v. Eighty Two Condominium
green
1 sentence2014On the issue of the change of address of the location at trial, the Appellate Division stated, “the change of location of the accident was not itself substantive.” ( 117 AD3d at 587 .) In Dillon , the plaintiffs notice of claim stated that she was injured while disembarking from defendant’s number 9 bus in Bronx County “in the vicinity of Eastchester Road directly opposite The Albert Einstein Medical Center” ( 182 AD2d at 553 ). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Burgarella v. City of New York
green
1 sentence2011Therefore, the NYCTA had been duly and timely notified (see Burgarella v City of New York, 265 AD2d 361 [1999]). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Boakye-Yiadom v. Roosevelt Union Free School District
neutral
1 sentence2008Here, the plaintiffs notice of claim was untimely (see Boakye-Yiadom v Roosevelt Union Free School Dist, 57 AD3d 928 [2008] [decided herewith]). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Allstate Indemnity Co. v. Martinez green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Hudson v. New York City Transit Authority
green
1 sentence2008Auth., 19 AD3d 648 [2005] ). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Streletskaya v. New York City Transit Authority green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Rush v. County of Suffolk
green
1 sentence2008In a prior appeal (see Matter of Rush v County of Suffolk, 35 AD3d 619 [2006]), this Court determined that the plaintiffs notice of claim was insufficient under General Municipal Law § 50-e (2) (see Mollerson v City of New York, 8 AD3d 70, 71 [2004] ; see also Santoro v Town of Smithtown, 40 AD3d 736, 737 [2007]; cf. Hudson v New York City Tr. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Ingle v. New York City Transit Authority green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Surdo v. Albany Collision Supply, Inc. green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| D'Alessandro v. New York City Transit Authority green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Stone v. Goodson green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Roller v. Walsh green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Barksdale v. New York City Transit Authority green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Alvarez v. Prospect Hospital green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Mazzilli v. City of New York green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Gazes v. Hamilton neutral | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Parochial Bus Systems, Inc. v. Board of Education green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Yankana v. City of New York green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| W.J.F. Realty Corp. v. State green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Ames v. City of New York green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Thomas v. Town of Oyster Bay green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Earle v. Town of Oyster Bay green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| McClelland v. Seery green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Marallo v. New York State Board of Elections green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Fischer v. Weiland green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Zapata v. City of New York green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Adrian v. Town of Oyster Bay green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Harper v. City of New York green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Coyne v. Coyne green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| Mazza v. City of New York green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.