Scruggs v. City of N.Y., 570142/21

CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Term
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM.
Citation155 N.Y.S.3d 27 (Table),73 Misc.3d 135 (A)
Parties Seth SCRUGGS, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant-Appellant.
Docket Number570142/21
Decision Date10 November 2021

73 Misc.3d 135 (A)
155 N.Y.S.3d 27 (Table)

Seth SCRUGGS, Plaintiff-Respondent,
CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant-Appellant.


Supreme Court, Appellate Term, New York, First Department.

Decided on November 10, 2021

Per Curiam.

Order (Denise M. Dominguez, J.), entered July 16, 2019, reversed, without costs, cross-motion granted and the complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Plaintiff's failure to comply with General Municipal Law § 50-e(2), by setting forth in his notice of claim "the time when ... and the manner in which the claim arose," warranted dismissal of the complaint (see Foster v City of New York , 112 AD3d 783 [2013] ; Soto v City of New York , 161 AD2d 246 [1990] ). The notice of claim at issue, which merely alleged "digital tapes of a larceny" on a certain No. 6 train platform, did not allege the date and manner in which the purported incident occurred, and contained no reference to any acts or omissions attributable to defendant. Therefore, the notice was too vague to permit defendant to conduct a meaningful investigation into plaintiff's claim and to assess the merits of that claim (see Teresta v City of New York , 304 NY 440, 443 [1952] ; Mollerson v City of New York , 8 AD3d 70 [2004] ).

In view of our determination, we reach no other issue.


All concur.

To continue reading

Request your trial

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