Chikara v. City of New York

Citation206 N.Y.S.2d 780,8 N.Y.2d 1014
Parties, 170 N.E.2d 204 Romona CHIKARA, an infant, by her guardian ad litem, Dominick Chikara, Appellant, and Dominick Chikara, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant, and The Board of Education of the City of New York, Respondent.
Decision Date06 October 1960
CourtNew York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, 10 A.D.2d 862, 199 N.Y.S.2d 829.

Infant, by her guardian ad litem, brought action against the City of New York and the Board of Education of the City of New York for injuries sustained by the infant when she was struck in the eye with the blunt end of a compass by a classmate in school.

The Supreme Court, Special Term, Kings County, Louis L. Friedman, J., 21 Misc.2d 446, 190 N.Y.S.2d 576, rendered order granting infant leave to amend her notice of claim against the board of education, and the board of education appealed.

The Appellate Division, 10 A.D.2d 862, 199 N.Y.S.2d 829, reversed the order and held that service of notice of claim four and one-half months after accident, without leave of court, was a nullity, and that leave to serve a late notice of claim could not be granted in view of lapse of more than one year since time of accident, and that, assuming that report of accident might be deemed an irregular notice of claim and amendable, signed accident report given to nurse or teacher or principal was not served on the person designated by law to be served under General Municipal Law, Consol.Laws, c. 24, § 50-e, and that subsequent hearing and physical examination of infant was not a validation of the service.

The infant appealed to the Court of Appeals, and motion was made in the Court of Appeals to dismiss the appeal.

Motion to dismiss the appeal granted and the appeal dismissed, with costs, and ten dollars costs of motion, upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Smith v. City of N.Y.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • 23 Junio 2014
    ...997 N.Y.S.2d 101 (Table)Chris SMITH, Plaintiff(s)v.The CITY OF NEW YORK and The New York City Housing Authority, Defendant(s).No. 20671/14.Supreme Court, Bronx County, New York.June 23, 2014.OpinionMITCHELL J. DANZIGER, ... City of New York, 221 A.D.2d 168, 169 [1st Dept 1995] ; Van der Lugt v. City of New York, 36 A.D.2d 915, 915 [1st Dept 1971] ; Chikara v. City of New York, 10 A.D.2d 862, 862 [2d Dept 1960], appeal dismissed 8 N.Y.2d 1014 [1960] ).However, when a party fails to timely file a notice ... ...
  • Favier by Favier v. Winick
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • 27 Abril 1992
    ... ... infant and presented to the jury, appears to be one of first impression in the State of New York ...          Generally, a party who claims to have suffered personal injuries by reason of ... City of Brooklyn, 33 App.Div. 539, 53 N.Y.S. 1007 [1898]. The injured person is bound to submit to a ... 's interests with respect to actions brought by and [151 Misc.2d 913] against him (see Chikara v. City of New York, 21 Misc.2d 446, 190 N.Y.S.2d 576 [1959] revd. oth. grnds. 10 A.D.2d 862, 199 ... ...
  • De La Cruz v. City of New York
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 2 Noviembre 1995
    ... ... Corp., 147 A.D.2d 362, 537 N.Y.S.2d 526; see also, Bourguignon v. City of New York, 157 A.D.2d 644, 549 N.Y.S.2d 743). Hence, even if the May 9, 1983 "notice" were intended to be an amended notice of claim, it is a nullity as it was served upon defendants without leave of court (Chikara v. City of New York, 10 A.D.2d 862, 199 N.Y.S.2d 829, lv. denied 11 A.D.2d 688, 205 N.Y.S.2d 850, appeal dismissed, ... ...
  • Pugh v. Board of Ed. Central Dist. No. 1--Fayetteville-Manlius School Dist.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 1 Diciembre 1971
    ... ... New York City Tr. Auth., 33 A.D.2d 669, 305 N.Y.S.2d 34). Discretion is only permitted in those cases under ... New York City Tr. Auth., 20 N.Y.2d 1, 281 N.Y.S.2d 289, 228 N.E.2d 361; see Chikara v. City of New York, 10 A.D.2d 862, 199 N.Y.S.2d 829, app. dsmd. 8 N.Y.2d 1014, 206 N.Y.S.2d 780, ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT