Purdy v. City of New York

• Decision Date: 08 December 1908
• Citation: 193 N.Y. 521,86 N.E. 560
• Parties: PURDY v. CITY OF NEW YORK.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

193 N.Y. 521

86 N.E. 560

PURDY

v.CITY OF NEW YORK.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Dec. 8, 1908.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

Action by William J. Purdy against the City of New York. From a judgment of the Appellate Division (110 N. Y. Supp. 822), reversing a judgment dismissing the complaint, defendant appeals. Reversed.Francis K. Pendleton, Corp. Counsel (James D. Bell, of counsel), for appellant.

Martin S. Lynch, for respondent.

WERNER, J.

This action was brought to recover damages for injuries sustained by the plaintiff as the result of a fall upon a defective sidewalk which, it is alleged, the defendant negligently permitted to remain in a defective condition. The trial court submitted the questions of fact to the jury, subject to the opinion of the court. The jury reported a disagreement, and then the court dismissed the complaint upon the ground of the insufficiency of the notice served by the plaintiff in attempted compliance with the provisions of chapter 572, p. 801, of the Laws of 1886. Judgment was entered dismissing the complaint. Upon appeal to the Appellate Division, that judgment was reversed and a new trial granted. Upon the defendant's appeal to this court, the only questions presented relate to the sufficiency of the notice required by the statute referred to, and to the defendant's right to insist upon strict compliance therewith.

As the complaint was dismissed, the plaintiff is entitled to the view of the facts most favorable to him. These facts, so far as material to the questions here involved, establish that the plaintiff, on July 8, 1904, received the injuries complained of by falling into an opening, gully, or trench extending across the sidewalk of Milford street, borough of Brooklyn, city of New York. The opening or trench varied in depth from three to four feet, and was about three feet wide. Milford street is from a mile to a mile and a quarter in length. About a month after the accident, the plaintiff caused to be served upon the corporation counsel of the defendant the following notice: ‘You will please take notice that I hereby, pursuant to chapter 572 of the Laws of 1886, notify you of my intention to commence suit against the city of New York, to recover damages to the amount of five thousand dollars for injuries which I received on or about the 8th day of July, 1904. Whilst walking along the sidewalk on Milford street, borough of Brooklyn, in the nighttime, I was caused to fall into an opening, gully or trench running across said sidewalk, whereby I was caused to sustain bodily injuries which I fear are permanent.’ This notice was received and retained without objection by the then corporation counsel of the defendant. The statute under which this notice was served (Laws 1886, p. 801, c. 572, § 1) provides that no action to recover damages for personal injuries shall be maintained against any city of the state, having a population of 50,000 or over, on the ground of the negligence of any of the city's officers or agents ‘unless notice of the intention to commence such action and of the time and place at which the injuries were received shall have been filed with the counsel to the corporation or other proper law officer thereof within six months after such cause of action shall have accrued.’ The only specification contained in the notice served by the plaintiff as to the place where he met with the accident of which he complains is that it occurred at an opening, gully, or trench extending across the sidewalk of Milford street. Milford street is at least a mile in length.

The first question to be determined is whether the plaintiff's notice sufficiently describes the place where the accident happened. The plain purpose of this statute, and of similar provisions in the charters of the various municipalities throughout the state, is to guard them against imposition by requiring notice of the circumstances of an injury upon which a claim for damages is made, so that its authorities may be in a position to investigate the facts as to time and place, and decide whether the case is one for settlement or litigation. The statute before us,...