Smith v. Village of Hempstead
| Decision Date | 24 October 1988 |
| Citation | 143 A.D.2d 897,533 N.Y.S.2d 510 |
| Parties | Michele SMITH, Appellant v. The VILLAGE OF HEMPSTEAD, Respondent, et al., Defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
David M. Lee, New York City (Steven P. Germansky, of counsel), for appellant.
Kroll & Tract, Mineola (Stanley E. Orzechowski, of counsel), for defendant.
Before BRACKEN, J.P., and LAWRENCE, SPATT and HARWOOD, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Robbins, J.), entered February 17, 1987, which, upon granting the defendant Village of Hempstead's motion for summary judgment, dismissed the complaint as against it.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
We agree with the Supreme Court, Nassau County, that dismissal of the complaint as against the Village of Hempstead was warranted since the plaintiff's notice of claim was defective. Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the description of the alleged accident site in her notice of claim was too vague to permit the village to properly investigate the claim (see, Mazza v. City of New York, 112 A.D.2d 921, 492 N.Y.S.2d 438; Caselli v. City of New York, 105 A.D.2d 251, 483 N.Y.S.2d 401). Specifically, the notice of claim alleged that the accident occurred "on the parking lot at Cooper Street and Washington Street, Hempstead, New York". However, it is not disputed that there are four parking lots located at or near the named intersection. While the plaintiff was given several opportunities to provide the village with a more definite location of the purported accident, she failed to do so. Her counsel's belated request, made about 19 months after the alleged accident and only in opposition to the village's motion, for an order directing the plaintiff to appear at the place of the alleged accident and point out to the village the exact location, was insufficient to eliminate the prejudice to the village in its defense to this action.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. State
...with Court of Claims Act § 11 (b) where the description could refer to several different locations (see Smith v Village of Hempstead, 143 A.D.2d 897, 897-898 [2d Dept 1988] [finding location description insufficient where there were four parking lots located near the named intersection]; Al......
-
Schneider v. State
...claim and the claim failed to provide the State with a sufficient description of the place of the accident (see, Smith v. Village of Hempstead, 143 A.D.2d 897, 533 N.Y.S.2d 510; see also, Mitchell v. City of New York, 131 A.D.2d 313, 516 N.Y.S.2d 458; Harper v. City of New York, 129 A.D.2d ......
-
Sheils v. State
...of Court of Claims Act § 11(b) (see, Schneider v. State of New York, 234 A.D.2d 357, 650 N.Y.S.2d 798; Smith v. Village of Hempstead, 143 A.D.2d 897, 533 N.Y.S.2d 510). ...