Campbell v. City of New York
| Decision Date | 06 October 1980 |
| Citation | 432 N.Y.S.2d 107,78 A.D.2d 631 |
| Parties | Ralph CAMPBELL et al., Appellants, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Aaron J. Broder, New York City (Arthur N. Seiff, New York City, of counsel), for appellants.
Allen G. Schwartz, Corp. Counsel, New York City (Marvin R. Kwartler and Angelo Aiosa, New York City, of counsel), for respondent.
Before DAMIANI, J. P., and LAZER, MANGANO and COHALAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered December 14, 1979, which dismissed their complaint at the close of their case, at a jury trial.
Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The notice of claim, filed pursuant to section 50-e of the General Municipal Law, incorrectly referred to the site of the accident as the "sidewalk located on Cornaga (sic ) Avenue * * * which is adjacent and/or in close proximity or contiguous with a business establishment commonly known as 'The New Pantry Bar', whose address * * * is 1922 Coranga (sic ) Avenue, Queens, New York". The actual accident situs was the sidewalk at 1933 Cornega Avenue, fronting premises known as the "Bantry Bay" bar and diagonally across the street from 1922 Cornega Avenue. In light of this significant discrepancy, it was not an abuse of discretion for Trial Term to have denied plaintiffs' application to amend the notice of claim (see General Municipal Law, § 50-e, subd. 6). The description in the notice of claim was not reasonably sufficient to enable defendant to properly investigate the place of the accident and otherwise assess the merits of plaintiffs' claim (see Denecke v. Property Collaterals, 279 N.Y. 105, 17 N.E.2d 787; Moran v. City of Yonkers, 282 App.Div. 702, 122 N.Y.S.2d 60; Ross v. City of New York, 261 App.Div. 841, 24 N.Y.S.2d 897, mot. for. lv. to app. den. 261 App.Div. 933, 26 N.Y.S.2d 502 and 285 N.Y. 863, 33 N.E.2d 568).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Caselli v. City of New York
...York, 90 A.D.2d 786, 455 N.Y.S.2d 646; see, also, Faubert v. City of New York, 90 A.D.2d 509, 455 N.Y.S.2d 24; Campbell v. City of New York, 78 A.D.2d 631, 432 N.Y.S.2d 107). Moreover, we have recognized that claims involving "pothole" and sidewalk defects require even greater particularity......
-
Kasachkoff v. City of New York
...clearly contemplated by the statutory section. Cf. Faubert v. City of New York, 90 A.D.2d 509, 455 N.Y.S.2d 24; Campbell v. City of New York, 78 A.D.2d 631, 432 N.Y.S.2d 107. An important defect in the notice of claim is the failure to identify the person who made the defamatory remarks, al......
-
Mazza v. City of New York
...York, 90 A.D.2d 509, 455 N.Y.S.2d 24; Matter of Klobnock v. City of New York, 80 A.D.2d 854, 436 N.Y.S.2d 769; Campbell v. City of New York, 78 A.D.2d 631, 432 N.Y.S.2d 107). As a result, the city was clearly prejudiced, because the defect in the notice of claim deprived it of the opportuni......
-
Evers v. City of New York
...Schwartz v. City of New York, supra; cf. Matter of Klobnock v. City of New York, 80 A.D.2d 854, 436 N.Y.S.2d 769; Campbell v. City of New York, 78 A.D.2d 631, 432 N.Y.S.2d 107). Finally, no actual prejudice has been demonstrated by the city, and we see no reason for us to presume the existe......