D'Alessandro v. New York City Transit Authority
Decision Date | 10 May 1994 |
Citation | 83 N.Y.2d 891,613 N.Y.S.2d 849,636 N.E.2d 1382 |
Parties | , 636 N.E.2d 1382 Miriam D'ALESSANDRO, Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Respondent. |
Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and the case remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings in accordance with this memorandum.
On January 13, 1988, plaintiff was waiting for the B1 bus in Brooklyn. Due to the accumulation of snow and ice at the sidewalk bus stop, plaintiff was forced to wait on the street. Allegedly, an approaching bus pulled up too close to her, causing her to fall as she attempted to jump back toward the sidewalk to avoid being hit by the bus. Plaintiff sustained a fractured and dislocated elbow and other injuries as the result of her fall and sought damages against defendant in negligence.
Plaintiff's notice of claim, filed on February 3, 1988, did not identify the bus or bus driver allegedly involved or the nature of the accident. On February 24, 1988, plaintiff testified at a hearing held pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h. A summons and complaint was subsequently served upon defendant on June 3, 1988.
On January 10, 1991, after jury selection, defendant moved to dismiss the complaint because of plaintiff's failure to serve an adequate notice of claim, contending that it had been prejudiced in investigating the claim because the notice of claim failed to specify the bus or bus driver involved in the accident or the nature of the accident. Plaintiff contended that if the notice was insufficient it should be considered with the hearing testimony. Supreme Court, analyzing only the notice of claim, granted defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint, stating: The Appellate Division affirmed, 192 A.D.2d 505, 596 N.Y.S.2d 721.
In determining whether to grant the motion to dismiss the complaint, the courts below erroneously concluded that their inquiry was strictly limited to the "four corners" of the notice of claim (see, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Javed v. Shuang Zhang
...at a section 50–h hearing, and to such other evidence as is properly before the court.” D'Alessandro v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth., 83 N.Y.2d 891, 893, 613 N.Y.S.2d 849, 636 N.E.2d 1382 (N.Y.1994). The notice of claim served on the County clearly identifies the name and address of Javed and her a......
-
Delisser v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth.
...to General Municipal Law § 50–h, as well as any other evidence properly before the court ( D'Alessandro v. New York City Tr. Auth., 83 N.Y.2d 891, 893, 613 N.Y.S.2d 849, 636 N.E.2d 1382 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Parker–Cherry v. New York City Hous. Auth., 62 A.D.3d 845, 846, 8......
-
Lipani v. Hiawatha Elementary Sch.
...the sufficiency of a notice of claim, a court is not limited to the notice of claim itself (see D'Alessandro v. New York City Tr. Auth., 83 N.Y.2d 891, 893, 613 N.Y.S.2d 849, 636 N.E.2d 1382 ). "[A] mistake, omission, irregularity or defect made in good faith ... may be corrected, supplied ......
-
Vallejo-Bayas v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth.
...pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50–h and any other evidence properly before the court ( see D'Alessandro v. New York City Tr. Auth., 83 N.Y.2d 891, 893, 613 N.Y.S.2d 849, 636 N.E.2d 1382;Luke v. Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 82 A.D.3d 1055, 1056, 919 N.Y.S.2d 189;Power v. Manhattan & Bron......