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.
7 New York opinions name it 2 courts 1956–2004 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Delgadogreen1 sentence1997Also, given the defective notice and the ambiguity of the motion court’s ruling on the issue, the hearing court was not bound by that ruling, where such adherence would clearly result in significant unfairness (see, People v Blake, 35 NY2d 331, 334 ; see also, People v Delgado, 225 AD2d 478 , lv denied 88 NY2d 983 ). | 1 | 1 |
Ostrow v. City of New Yorkgreen1 sentence1956(See Matter of Ostrow v. City of New York, 191 Misc. 240, 241 [opinion by Froessel, J.].) It seems quite obvious from a consideration of pages 279 and 280 of the Tenth Annual Report of the New York Judicial Council, 1944, that subdivision 6 of section 50-e of the General Municipal Law is aimed at the correction of purely formal mistakes, omissions, irregularities and defects in notices of claims. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Murphy v. Kaplan
green
1 sentence2004Auth., 288 AD2d 361 [2001]). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
People v. Estrada
neutral
1 sentence1997Moreover, the defendant alleged sufficient factual allegations to support a hearing as to probable cause for the arrest (see, People v Mendoza, 82 NY2d 415 ; People v Estrada, 147 AD2d 407 ), and, as a matter of fairness, the revelation of the defective notice at the hearing held required expansion of that hearing to include the probable cause issue (see, People v Misuis, 47 NY2d 979, 981 ; People v Wise, 46 NY2d 321, 329 ). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
People v. Blake
green
1 sentence1997Also, given the defective notice and the ambiguity of the motion court’s ruling on the issue, the hearing court was not bound by that ruling, where such adherence would clearly result in significant unfairness (see, People v Blake, 35 NY2d 331, 334 ; see also, People v Delgado, 225 AD2d 478 , lv denied 88 NY2d 983 ). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
People v. Misuis
green
1 sentence1997Moreover, the defendant alleged sufficient factual allegations to support a hearing as to probable cause for the arrest (see, People v Mendoza, 82 NY2d 415 ; People v Estrada, 147 AD2d 407 ), and, as a matter of fairness, the revelation of the defective notice at the hearing held required expansion of that hearing to include the probable cause issue (see, People v Misuis, 47 NY2d 979, 981 ; People v Wise, 46 NY2d 321, 329 ). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
People v. Wise
green
1 sentence1997Moreover, the defendant alleged sufficient factual allegations to support a hearing as to probable cause for the arrest (see, People v Mendoza, 82 NY2d 415 ; People v Estrada, 147 AD2d 407 ), and, as a matter of fairness, the revelation of the defective notice at the hearing held required expansion of that hearing to include the probable cause issue (see, People v Misuis, 47 NY2d 979, 981 ; People v Wise, 46 NY2d 321, 329 ). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
People v. Mendoza
green
1 sentence1997Moreover, the defendant alleged sufficient factual allegations to support a hearing as to probable cause for the arrest (see, People v Mendoza, 82 NY2d 415 ; People v Estrada, 147 AD2d 407 ), and, as a matter of fairness, the revelation of the defective notice at the hearing held required expansion of that hearing to include the probable cause issue (see, People v Misuis, 47 NY2d 979, 981 ; People v Wise, 46 NY2d 321, 329 ). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Caselli v. City of New York
green
1 sentence1989Although courts have permitted amendments of notices of claim to cure such defects as incorrect accident sites where knowledge of the correct facts was available to the public corporation and imputable to it, those decisions concluding that the public corporation would not be prejudiced by allowing a defective notice of claim to be amended generally require more than the mere existence of an accident or aided report to impute actual knowledge and negate a claim of prejudice (see, Levine v City of New York, supra, at 787; Caselli v City of New York, 105 AD2d 251, 258 ). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Sanchez v. City of New York
green
1 sentence1984For example, in Sanchez v City of New York ( 25 AD2d 731 ), the notice of claim contained an error with respect to the date of the accident. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Rivero v. City of New York
green
1 sentence1979In the circumstances presented, it may not be said that any error in the notice prejudiced the city (see Rivero v City of New York, 290 NY 204, 208 ). | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Purdy v. . City of New York
green
1 sentence1962It is noted that retention of a defective notice of claim does not constitute a waiver of the defect (Purdy v. City of New York, 193 N. Y. 521, 525 ), and that plaintiffs have shown no basis upon which the court may grant an extension of time within which they may file a new notice of claim. | 1 | 1962–1962 |
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.