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.
13 New York opinions name it 3 courts 1959–2021 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Davidson v. Bronx Municipal Hospitalgreen2 sentences2021Hosp. , 64 NY2d 59, 61-62 [1984]). 1987(See, Pierson v City of New York, 56 NY2d 950 .) As the Court of Appeals has made clear in Davidson (supra), even service of a complaint within the 90-day period after the action arises does not excuse service of a valid notice of claim (Davidson v Bronx Mun. | 3 | 4 |
Brown v. City of New Yorkgreen1 sentence2017Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, a letter sent by the plaintiff’s counsel to the MTA dated July 1, 2013, did not constitute a valid notice of claim, inasmuch as it did not substantially comply with the statutory requirements of General Municipal Law § 50-e [2] (see Mendik v Incorporated Vil. of Lattingtown, 76 AD3d 616 , 617-618 [2010]; cf. Brown v City of New York, 95 NY2d 389, 391-393 [2000]). | 1 | 1 |
Guryev v. Tomchinskygreen1 sentence2017Although the plaintiff’s alternative contention that he was not required to *1013 serve a notice of claim because his claims sound in contract, not in tort, is raised for the first time on appeal, this Court may consider the argument since it presents an issue of law that appears on the face of the record, and could not have been avoided had it been raised at the proper juncture (see Guryev v Tomchinsky, 114 AD3d 723, 724 [2014]; Verde Elec. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Tarquinio v. City of New York
green
1 sentence2011Plaintiff/debtor never served a valid notice of claim, so while the summons and complaint were timely served and this action timely commenced, 3 “the statute clearly contemplates a notice of claim distinct from the complaint.” (Tarquinio, 84 AD2d at 268 ; see General Municipal Law § 50-e [1] [a].) Plaintiff s/debtor’s complaint against Housing Authority is therefore dismissed. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance v. Village of Croton-on-Hudson
neutral
1 sentence2007Co. v Village of Croton-on-Hudson, 32 AD3d 380 [2006]), and reversed an order of the Supreme Court which granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff failed to serve a valid notice of claim. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Brown v. Bethlehem Terrace Associates
green
1 sentence2005The elements of a cause of action for slander of title are: a communication (1) falsely casting doubt on the validity of complainant’s title; (2) reasonably calculated to cause harm; and (3) resulting in special damages (Brown v Bethlehem Terrace Assoc., 136 AD2d 222 [1988]). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Wertenberger v. Village of Briarcliff Manor
green
1 sentence2002The letter was not verified, and did not set forth the nature of the medical malpractice claim with the specificity required by General Municipal Law § 50-e (2) (see Ribeiro v Town of N. Hempstead, 200 AD2d 730 ; Matter of Wertenberger v Village of Briarcliff Manor, 175 AD2d 922 ; cf. Smith v Scott, 294 AD2d 11 ). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Ribeiro v. Town of North Hempstead
green
1 sentence2002The letter was not verified, and did not set forth the nature of the medical malpractice claim with the specificity required by General Municipal Law § 50-e (2) (see Ribeiro v Town of N. Hempstead, 200 AD2d 730 ; Matter of Wertenberger v Village of Briarcliff Manor, 175 AD2d 922 ; cf. Smith v Scott, 294 AD2d 11 ). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Smith v. Scott
green
1 sentence2002The letter was not verified, and did not set forth the nature of the medical malpractice claim with the specificity required by General Municipal Law § 50-e (2) (see Ribeiro v Town of N. Hempstead, 200 AD2d 730 ; Matter of Wertenberger v Village of Briarcliff Manor, 175 AD2d 922 ; cf. Smith v Scott, 294 AD2d 11 ). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Sibrizzi v. Mount Tom Day School
green
1 sentence1999Considered together, these timely submissions were at least adequate to constitute a valid notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (see, Miller v Liberty Lines, 208 AD2d 454 ; Losada v Liberty Lines Tr., 155 AD2d 337 ; Gallagher v Liberty Lines Tr., 211 AD2d 440 ). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Miller v. Lines
green
1 sentence1999Considered together, these timely submissions were at least adequate to constitute a valid notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (see, Miller v Liberty Lines, 208 AD2d 454 ; Losada v Liberty Lines Tr., 155 AD2d 337 ; Gallagher v Liberty Lines Tr., 211 AD2d 440 ). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
People v. Jamison
green
1 sentence1999Considered together, these timely submissions were at least adequate to constitute a valid notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (see, Miller v Liberty Lines, 208 AD2d 454 ; Losada v Liberty Lines Tr., 155 AD2d 337 ; Gallagher v Liberty Lines Tr., 211 AD2d 440 ). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Quintero v. Long Island Rail Road
neutral
1 sentence1987R. ( 31 AD2d 844 ), the summons and complaint could be deemed a valid notice of claim because it contained all the required information and was filed within 90 days of accrual of the cause of action. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Pierson v. City of New York
green
1 sentence1987(See, Pierson v City of New York, 56 NY2d 950 .) As the Court of Appeals has made clear in Davidson (supra), even service of a complaint within the 90-day period after the action arises does not excuse service of a valid notice of claim (Davidson v Bronx Mun. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
P. J. Panzeca, Inc. v. Board of Education
green
1 sentence1985Panzeca, Inc. v Board of Educ., 29 NY2d 508, 509 , rearg dismissed 29 NY2d 749 ). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Parochial Bus Systems, Inc. v. Board of Education
green
1 sentence1985Memorandum: None of the writings relied upon by the plaintiff was sufficient to constitute a valid notice of claim, and several of them were not served, as required by statute, upon the "governing body” (Education Law § 3813 [1]; Parochial Bus Sys. v Board of Educ., 60 NY2d 539 ; P. J. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Fries v. Bray
neutral
1 sentence1962This latter section provides that the law “is to be construed liberally to secure the beneficial interests and purposes thereof.” Such application of the liberalizing provisions of the Lien Law presupposes the existence of a valid notice of claim (Fries v. Bray, 279 App. Div. 8, 10 ; Houseknecht v. Reeve, 108 N. Y. | 1 | 1962–1962 |
Teresta v. City of New York
green
1 sentence1959Irregularities in a notice of claim may even be waived by a municipal corporation by its acts and conduct (Teresta v. City of New York, 304 N. Y. 440 ; General Municipal Law, § 50-e, subd. 3). | 1 | 1959–1959 |
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.