264 A.2d 201 (N.J. 1970), Zamel v. Port of New York Authority

Citation:264 A.2d 201, 56 N.J. 1
Opinion Judge:[9] Per Curiam
Party Name:Jacob ZAMEL, et ux., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. PORT OF NEW YORK AUTHORITY, Defendant-Respondent.
Attorney:[6] Mr. Barry H. Evenchick argued the cause for the appellants (Messrs. Riccardelli, Evenchick & Franconero, attorneys).
Case Date:April 20, 1970
Court:Supreme Court of New Jersey

Page 201

264 A.2d 201 (N.J. 1970)

56 N.J. 1

Jacob ZAMEL, et ux., Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

PORT OF NEW YORK AUTHORITY, Defendant-Respondent.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

April 20, 1970

Argued March 3, 1970. [56 N.J. 2]

Barry H. Evenchick, East Orange, for appellants (Riccardelli, Evenchick & Franconero, East Orange, attorneys).

Francis A. Mulhern, Newark, for respondent (Sidney Goldstein, of the New York Bar, New York City, Gen. Counsel to The Port of New York Authority, and Herbert Ouida, of the New York Bar, New York City, of counsel, Hugh H. Welsh, of the New Jersey Bar, Newark, on the brief).

PER CURIAM.

The Law Division dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint on the ground that they had not strictly complied with the notice of claim requirement set forth in N.J.S.A. 32:1--163, 164. They duly appealed to the Appellate Division and we certified before argument there.

On January 15, 1968 the plaintiff Jacob Zamel suffered personal injuries when he fell on an icy parking lot at the Newark Airport which is operated by the defendant Port of New York Authority. He immediately reported the incident [56 N.J. 3] to a police officer and was treated at the medical clinic located in Building No. 5 at the Airport. Several days later, on January 19, William E. McDonough, Representative of the Port Authority, sent a note to Mr. Zamel requesting that he call him about his 'fall at Newark Airport.' On May 16

Page 202

an attorney addressed a letter to the Port Authority, attention of Mr. McDonough, advising that his office represented Mr. Zamel with reference to the injuries he sustained 'in an accident which occurred on January 15, 1968, at about 9:30 A.M., Parking Lot #1, Aisle #15 located at Newark Airport, Newark, New Jersey'; the attorney advised further that the investigation conducted by his office indicated that Mr. Zamel 'was caused to slip and fall and injure himself on the above premises as a result of the carelessness and negligence of your agents, servants and employees'; he concluded his letter with an inquiry as to what disposition the Port Authority intended 'to make of this claim.'

Under date of May 21, Mr. Gillespie, claims attorney for the Port Authority, wrote a letter to Mr. Zamel's attorney acknowledging his May 16 letter, enclosing copies of the statute granting consent to suit, calling his attention to sections 7 and 8 (N.J.S.A. 32:1--163, 164), and submitting forms with the comment that they could be used, if so desired, '(a)lthough no particular form is necessary so long as it satisfies the requirements of the statute. * * *' Mr. Zamel's attorney did not fill in or return the forms but under date of June 11, 1968 he did address a letter to the Port Authority, attention of Mr. McDonough, enclosing...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP
47 practice notes
  • 539 P.2d 987 (Idaho 1975), 11744, Independent School Dist. of Boise City v. Callister, In and For Ada County
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court of Idaho
    • August 12, 1975
    ...of Indianapolis, 253 Ind. 472, 255 N.E.2d 225 (1970); Travis v. Kansas City, 491 S.W.2d 521 (Mo.1973); Zamel v. Port of New York Authority, 56 N.J. 1, 264 A.2d 201 (1970); Sandak v. Tuxedo Union School Dist. No. 3, 308 N.Y. 226, 124 N.E.2d 295 (1954); Heller v. City of Virginia Beach, 213 V......
  • 549 A.2d 894 (N.J.Super.A.D. 1988), Abel v. City of Atlantic City
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court of New Jersey
    • November 3, 1988
    ...to its prejudice by the statement of the erroneous date in the notice." 268 N.Y.S.2d at 733. Cf. Zamel v. Port of New York Authority, 56 N.J. 1, 264 A.2d 201 (1970); Dambro v. Union County Park Commission, 130 N.J.Super. 450, 327 A.2d 466 (Law.Div.1974). See also Lamerio v. West [228 N......
  • 661 A.2d 312 (N.J.Super.A.D. 1995), Brown v. Port Authority Police Superior Officers Ass'n
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court of New Jersey
    • July 7, 1995
    ...suit, plaintiffs clearly failed to comply with this procedural prerequisite. Plaintiffs argue, relying upon Zamel v. Port Auth. of N.Y., 56 N.J. 1, 264 A.2d 201 (1970), that they are not barred from maintaining their action against the Port Authority because they "substantially complie......
  • 571 A.2d 1006 (N.J.Super.A.D. 1990), Stegmeier v. St. Elizabeth Hosp.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court of New Jersey
    • March 23, 1990
    ...on technical grounds. The principle of substantial compliance is not foreign to our jurisprudence. See Zamel v. Port of N.Y. Authority, 56 N.J. 1, 5-6, 264 A.2d 201 (1970); Gibson v. Board of Ed. of City of Newark, 205 N.J.Super. 48, 54, 500 A.2d 27 (App.Div.1985). Whether conduct substanti......
  • Free signup to view additional results
47 cases
  • 539 P.2d 987 (Idaho 1975), 11744, Independent School Dist. of Boise City v. Callister, In and For Ada County
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court of Idaho
    • August 12, 1975
    ...of Indianapolis, 253 Ind. 472, 255 N.E.2d 225 (1970); Travis v. Kansas City, 491 S.W.2d 521 (Mo.1973); Zamel v. Port of New York Authority, 56 N.J. 1, 264 A.2d 201 (1970); Sandak v. Tuxedo Union School Dist. No. 3, 308 N.Y. 226, 124 N.E.2d 295 (1954); Heller v. City of Virginia Beach, 213 V......
  • 549 A.2d 894 (N.J.Super.A.D. 1988), Abel v. City of Atlantic City
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court of New Jersey
    • November 3, 1988
    ...to its prejudice by the statement of the erroneous date in the notice." 268 N.Y.S.2d at 733. Cf. Zamel v. Port of New York Authority, 56 N.J. 1, 264 A.2d 201 (1970); Dambro v. Union County Park Commission, 130 N.J.Super. 450, 327 A.2d 466 (Law.Div.1974). See also Lamerio v. West [228 N......
  • 661 A.2d 312 (N.J.Super.A.D. 1995), Brown v. Port Authority Police Superior Officers Ass'n
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court of New Jersey
    • July 7, 1995
    ...suit, plaintiffs clearly failed to comply with this procedural prerequisite. Plaintiffs argue, relying upon Zamel v. Port Auth. of N.Y., 56 N.J. 1, 264 A.2d 201 (1970), that they are not barred from maintaining their action against the Port Authority because they "substantially complie......
  • 571 A.2d 1006 (N.J.Super.A.D. 1990), Stegmeier v. St. Elizabeth Hosp.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court of New Jersey
    • March 23, 1990
    ...on technical grounds. The principle of substantial compliance is not foreign to our jurisprudence. See Zamel v. Port of N.Y. Authority, 56 N.J. 1, 5-6, 264 A.2d 201 (1970); Gibson v. Board of Ed. of City of Newark, 205 N.J.Super. 48, 54, 500 A.2d 27 (App.Div.1985). Whether conduct substanti......
  • Free signup to view additional results