From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Freligh v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 30, 1942
265 App. Div. 967 (N.Y. App. Div. 1942)

Opinion

December 30, 1942.


Appeal from a judgment dismissing the complaint upon the opening of the case. Judgment reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. The notice of intention to sue complied substantially with section 394a-1.0 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York "with such practical certainty as to satisfy the purpose of the statute" ( Denecke v. Property Collaterals, Inc., 279 N.Y. 105, 107) so as "to give the city the opportunity to investigate such claim." ( Schwartz v. City of New York, 250 N.Y. 332, 335.) The accident happened at the southwest corner of Vanderbilt and St. Marks avenues, in Brooklyn. The reference to premises on St. Marks avenue was as unnecessary as it was erroneous. But, in view of the small area covered by the places mentioned in the notice, the notice, when reasonably construed, accomplished the purpose of the statute. ( Walden v. City of Jamestown, 178 N.Y. 213.) Lazansky, P.J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Close, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Freligh v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 30, 1942
265 App. Div. 967 (N.Y. App. Div. 1942)
Case details for

Freligh v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:ELIZABETH FRELIGH, Appellant, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Dec 30, 1942

Citations

265 App. Div. 967 (N.Y. App. Div. 1942)

Citing Cases

Mullen v. City of New York

There are no precise boundaries for a written notice's particularity; some courts have held—and this Court…

DE LUCA v. CITY OF NEW YORK

There is in fact a subway station at 17th Street and Fourth Avenue, but it is known as the Prospect Avenue…