second notice claim in New York

1969This position is supported by Village of Mill Neck v. Nolan ( 233 App. Div. 248 , affd. 259 N. Y. 596 ); Brechner v. Incorporated Vil. of Lake Success ( 25 Misc 2d 920 , affd. 14 A D 2d 567, app. dsmd., 11 N Y 2d 929).

1965It was substantially the same as one adopted on October 12, 1964 following notice and hearing, and thereafter rescinded; and under such circumstances a second notice and hearing are not required (cf. Village of Mill Neck v. Nolan, 233 App. Div. 248 , affd. 259 N. Y. 596 ; Matter of Hall v. Leonard, 260 App. Div. 591 , affd. 285 N. Y. 719 ; Brechner v. Incorporated Vil. of Lake Success, 25 Misc 2d 920 , affd. 14 A D 2d 567).

1969This position is supported by Village of Mill Neck v. Nolan ( 233 App. Div. 248 , affd. 259 N. Y. 596 ); Brechner v. Incorporated Vil. of Lake Success ( 25 Misc 2d 920 , affd. 14 A D 2d 567, app. dsmd., 11 N Y 2d 929).

1965It was substantially the same as one adopted on October 12, 1964 following notice and hearing, and thereafter rescinded; and under such circumstances a second notice and hearing are not required (cf. Village of Mill Neck v. Nolan, 233 App. Div. 248 , affd. 259 N. Y. 596 ; Matter of Hall v. Leonard, 260 App. Div. 591 , affd. 285 N. Y. 719 ; Brechner v. Incorporated Vil. of Lake Success, 25 Misc 2d 920 , affd. 14 A D 2d 567).

1969This position is supported by Village of Mill Neck v. Nolan ( 233 App. Div. 248 , affd. 259 N. Y. 596 ); Brechner v. Incorporated Vil. of Lake Success ( 25 Misc 2d 920 , affd. 14 A D 2d 567, app. dsmd., 11 N Y 2d 929).

1965It was substantially the same as one adopted on October 12, 1964 following notice and hearing, and thereafter rescinded; and under such circumstances a second notice and hearing are not required (cf. Village of Mill Neck v. Nolan, 233 App. Div. 248 , affd. 259 N. Y. 596 ; Matter of Hall v. Leonard, 260 App. Div. 591 , affd. 285 N. Y. 719 ; Brechner v. Incorporated Vil. of Lake Success, 25 Misc 2d 920 , affd. 14 A D 2d 567).

2025The toll was in effect from March 20, 2020 to November 3, 2020 ( see Murphy v Harris, 210 AD3d 410 , 411 [1st Dept 2022]).

2023Contrary to the City defendants' contention, a significant dispute exists as to whether the second notice of claim was timely and properly served insofar as it relates to the cause of action alleging wrongful death ( see Gruber v Erie County Water Auth. , 71 AD3d at 1573 ).

2023Contrary to the City defendants' contention, a significant dispute exists as to whether the second notice of claim was timely and properly served insofar as it relates to the cause of action alleging wrongful death ( see Gruber v Erie County Water Auth. , 71 AD3d at 1573 ).

2007By labeling the second claim form a late notice of claim, NYCHA further relies on well-settled law to support its contention that it had no obligation to assert untimeliness as an affirmative defense (Reaves v City of New York, 177 AD2d 437 [1st Dept 1991]), which assertion would have alerted plaintiff before the statute of limitations expired.

1999Thus, any limitations on the opportunity to investigate the location of the fall resulted from defendant’s own dilatory conduct, not the delay in service of the notice of claim (cf., Heiman v City of New York, 85 AD2d 25, 30-31 ).

1983There is no doubt that procedural due process is complied with since the party being charged with the violation is given notice of the pendency of the action and an opportunity to present his defense (20 NY Jur 2d, Constitutional Law, §§ 400-405; Fire Dept. of City of N. Y. v Gilmour, 149 NY 453, 459 ).

1983Corp. v Goodie Brand Packing Corp. ( 83 Misc 2d 477 , affd 84 Misc 2d 493 , affd 52 AD2d 538 ), the courts had engrafted on to section 232-a of the Real Property Law and other notice statutes and regulations a second notice requirement when a previous proceeding was determined adversely to landlord not on the merits (Colavolpe v Williams, 77 Misc 2d 430 ; Brullo v Suen, 76 Misc 2d 896 ; Zimmerman v Buffolino, NYLJ, July 31, 1974, p 12, col 2; Haberman v Wager, 73 Misc 2d 732 ).

1983Corp. v Goodie Brand Packing Corp. ( 83 Misc 2d 477 , affd 84 Misc 2d 493 , affd 52 AD2d 538 ), the courts had engrafted on to section 232-a of the Real Property Law and other notice statutes and regulations a second notice requirement when a previous proceeding was determined adversely to landlord not on the merits (Colavolpe v Williams, 77 Misc 2d 430 ; Brullo v Suen, 76 Misc 2d 896 ; Zimmerman v Buffolino, NYLJ, July 31, 1974, p 12, col 2; Haberman v Wager, 73 Misc 2d 732 ).

1983Corp. v Goodie Brand Packing Corp. ( 83 Misc 2d 477 , affd 84 Misc 2d 493 , affd 52 AD2d 538 ), the courts had engrafted on to section 232-a of the Real Property Law and other notice statutes and regulations a second notice requirement when a previous proceeding was determined adversely to landlord not on the merits (Colavolpe v Williams, 77 Misc 2d 430 ; Brullo v Suen, 76 Misc 2d 896 ; Zimmerman v Buffolino, NYLJ, July 31, 1974, p 12, col 2; Haberman v Wager, 73 Misc 2d 732 ).

1983Corp. v Goodie Brand Packing Corp. ( 83 Misc 2d 477 , affd 84 Misc 2d 493 , affd 52 AD2d 538 ), the courts had engrafted on to section 232-a of the Real Property Law and other notice statutes and regulations a second notice requirement when a previous proceeding was determined adversely to landlord not on the merits (Colavolpe v Williams, 77 Misc 2d 430 ; Brullo v Suen, 76 Misc 2d 896 ; Zimmerman v Buffolino, NYLJ, July 31, 1974, p 12, col 2; Haberman v Wager, 73 Misc 2d 732 ).

1983Corp. v Goodie Brand Packing Corp. ( 83 Misc 2d 477 , affd 84 Misc 2d 493 , affd 52 AD2d 538 ), the courts had engrafted on to section 232-a of the Real Property Law and other notice statutes and regulations a second notice requirement when a previous proceeding was determined adversely to landlord not on the merits (Colavolpe v Williams, 77 Misc 2d 430 ; Brullo v Suen, 76 Misc 2d 896 ; Zimmerman v Buffolino, NYLJ, July 31, 1974, p 12, col 2; Haberman v Wager, 73 Misc 2d 732 ).

1983Corp. v Goodie Brand Packing Corp. ( 83 Misc 2d 477 , affd 84 Misc 2d 493 , affd 52 AD2d 538 ), the courts had engrafted on to section 232-a of the Real Property Law and other notice statutes and regulations a second notice requirement when a previous proceeding was determined adversely to landlord not on the merits (Colavolpe v Williams, 77 Misc 2d 430 ; Brullo v Suen, 76 Misc 2d 896 ; Zimmerman v Buffolino, NYLJ, July 31, 1974, p 12, col 2; Haberman v Wager, 73 Misc 2d 732 ).

1965It was substantially the same as one adopted on October 12, 1964 following notice and hearing, and thereafter rescinded; and under such circumstances a second notice and hearing are not required (cf. Village of Mill Neck v. Nolan, 233 App. Div. 248 , affd. 259 N. Y. 596 ; Matter of Hall v. Leonard, 260 App. Div. 591 , affd. 285 N. Y. 719 ; Brechner v. Incorporated Vil. of Lake Success, 25 Misc 2d 920 , affd. 14 A D 2d 567).

1965It was substantially the same as one adopted on October 12, 1964 following notice and hearing, and thereafter rescinded; and under such circumstances a second notice and hearing are not required (cf. Village of Mill Neck v. Nolan, 233 App. Div. 248 , affd. 259 N. Y. 596 ; Matter of Hall v. Leonard, 260 App. Div. 591 , affd. 285 N. Y. 719 ; Brechner v. Incorporated Vil. of Lake Success, 25 Misc 2d 920 , affd. 14 A D 2d 567).

1959(Holmes v. City of New York, 269 App. Div. 95 , affd. 295 N. Y. 615 .) By similar reasoning, since in the case at bar the original notice of claim contained notice of a possible wrongful death action, it should not be necessary to serve a second notice of claim for personal injuries.

1959(Holmes v. City of New York, 269 App. Div. 95 , affd. 295 N. Y. 615 .) By similar reasoning, since in the case at bar the original notice of claim contained notice of a possible wrongful death action, it should not be necessary to serve a second notice of claim for personal injuries.

1959(Holmes v. City of New York, 269 App. Div. 95 , affd. 295 N. Y. 615 .) By similar reasoning, since in the case at bar the original notice of claim contained notice of a possible wrongful death action, it should not be necessary to serve a second notice of claim for personal injuries.

1959(Holmes v. City of New York, 269 App. Div. 95 , affd. 295 N. Y. 615 .) By similar reasoning, since in the case at bar the original notice of claim contained notice of a possible wrongful death action, it should not be necessary to serve a second notice of claim for personal injuries.

1959(See Matter of Banas v. City of Syracuse, 204 Misc. 201, affd. 282 App. Div. 826 , motions for leave to appeal denied 282 App. Div. 850 , 306 N. Y. 981 .) Murphy, Ughetta and Hallinan, JJ., concur; Beldock, Acting P. J., and Kleinfeld, J., dissent and vote to affirm, with the following memorandum: Where the original notice of claim is for personal injuries, a second notice of claim for wrongful death is not necessary in the event of the death of the original claimant.

1959(See Matter of Banas v. City of Syracuse, 204 Misc. 201, affd. 282 App. Div. 826 , motions for leave to appeal denied 282 App. Div. 850 , 306 N. Y. 981 .) Murphy, Ughetta and Hallinan, JJ., concur; Beldock, Acting P. J., and Kleinfeld, J., dissent and vote to affirm, with the following memorandum: Where the original notice of claim is for personal injuries, a second notice of claim for wrongful death is not necessary in the event of the death of the original claimant.

1959(See Matter of Banas v. City of Syracuse, 204 Misc. 201, affd. 282 App. Div. 826 , motions for leave to appeal denied 282 App. Div. 850 , 306 N. Y. 981 .) Murphy, Ughetta and Hallinan, JJ., concur; Beldock, Acting P. J., and Kleinfeld, J., dissent and vote to affirm, with the following memorandum: Where the original notice of claim is for personal injuries, a second notice of claim for wrongful death is not necessary in the event of the death of the original claimant.

1957No showing was made that the failure to serve it within the 90-day period was due to any of the disabilities set forth in the statute (General Municipal Law, § 50-e, subd. 5; Matter of Rosenberg v. City of New York, 309 N. Y. 304 ; Matter of diento v. City of New York, 284 App. Div. 891 ), and no explanation was given for respondent’s failure to move herein until more than eight months after she served it (Matter of MeEwan v. City of New York, 279 App. Div. 802 ; Matter of Ruskm v. City of New York, 271 App. Div. 934 ).

1955The filing of the second notice of claim constituted a virtual abandonment of the first notice (La Chicotte v. City of New York, 166 App. Div. 279 ); in fact if the plaintiff’s proof of its case at the trial were to depend on the earlier notice, there would have been a defect in proof and a consequent nonsuit.