Sheehy v. City of New York

• Decision Date: 03 October 1899
• Citation: 54 N.E. 749,160 N.Y. 139
• Parties: SHEEHY v. CITY OF NEW YORK.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

160 N.Y. 139

54 N.E. 749

SHEEHY

v.CITY OF NEW YORK.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Oct. 3, 1899.

Appeal from supreme court, appellate division, First department.

Action by Agnes Sheehy against the city of New York for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by a defective sidewalk. From a judgment of the appellate division (51 N. Y. Supp. 519) overruling plaintiff's exceptions, which were ordered to be heard in the first instance by that court, and directing a judgment for defendant dismissing the complaint, with costs, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

David McClure, for appellant.

Theodore Connoly, for respondent.

MARTIN, J.

Only a single question was passed upon by either of the courts below, and is the only one presented for review by this court. It relates to the construction of chapter 572 of the Laws of 1886, and is whether the notice served by the plaintiff was a sufficient compliance with that statute. That act, in effect, provides that no action shall be maintained against the city of New York for damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by its negligence, unless notice of the intention to commence such action shall have been filed with the counsel for the corporation within six months after the cause of action accrued. That the plaintiff endeavored to comply with this provision of the statute, and that it was understood by the corporation counsel to have been complied with, there can be little doubt. The accident which was the basis of this action occurred on the 22d of September, 1894. On the 10th of the following November the plaintiff prepared a notice, which was filed in the office of the corporation counsel on November 12th, and was as follows: ‘In the Matter of the Claim of Agnes Sheehy against the Mayor, Aldermen, and Commonalty of the City of New York-Gentlemen: Please take notice that Agnes Sheehy claims and demands from the mayor, aldermen, and commonalty of the city of New York five thousand dollars damages for personal injuries sustained by her by falling upon the sidewalk on the west side of Washington avenue, in the city of New York, between One Hundred and Seventy-Fourth and One Hundred and Seventy-Fifth streets, on the 22d day of September, 1894; there being at the time a deep hole or depression in the sidewalk at that point, and the street gaslights not being lit. Dated New York, November 10th, 1894. Respectfully yours, Agnes Sheehy, Claimant. R. & E. J. O'Gorman, Attorneys for Agnes Sheehy, 49 and 51 Chambers Street, New York City. To Hon. Ashbel P. Fitch, Comptroller, and Hon. William H. Clark, Counsel to the Corporation.’ The contention of the respondent, which has prevailed in the courts below, is that the notice was insufficient, because it contained no statement of an intention to commence an action. The point upon which this appeal must turn is a very narrow one, and is whether the notice filed was in substantial compliance with the requirements of the statute in that respect.

The statute prescribes no form, although it states, in general terms, the nature of the notice required. Its purpose was that a notice should be given which would inform the law officer of the city of the nature of the claim, the place where and the circumstances under which it arose, and of a purpose on the part of the plaintiff to enforce it. That the notice in this case entirely fulfilled this purpose the plaintiff offered to prove, but the evidence was rejected. She offered to show...