From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ryan v. County of Nassau

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 3, 2000
271 A.D.2d 428 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Submitted February 23, 2000.

April 3, 2000.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Incorporated Village Port Washington North appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DeMaro, J.), entered March 29, 1999, which denied its motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it based on the inadequacy of the plaintiff's notice of claim.

Thurm Heller, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Charles Martin Arnold of counsel), for appellant.

DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., THOMAS R. SULLIVAN, SONDRA MILLER, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, HOWARD MILLER, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellant, and the action against the remaining defendant is severed.

The plaintiff allegedly tripped and fell on a defect in the roadway on Cow Neck Road in the Incorporated Village of Port Washington North. The timely notice of claim did not comply with the requirements of General Municipal Law § 50-e(2) because it did not correctly or sufficiently describe the location of the accident. Defects of this kind must be set forth with great specificity because of their transitory nature (see, Schwartz v. City of New York, 250 N.Y. 332 ; Earle v. Town of Oyster Bay, 247 A.D.2d 357;Fendig v. City of New York, 132 A.D.2d 520 ; Zapata v. City of New York, 225 A.D.2d 543 ; Caselli v. City of New York, 105 A.D.2d 251, 253 ). The appellant did not learn of the correct location of the accident until approximately 12 months after the date of the accident, when it received an amended notice of claim. Under these circumstances, the appellant was prejudiced by the defect in the notice since it was deprived of an opportunity to conduct a meaningful investigation (see, D'Alessandro v. New York City Tr. Auth., 83 N.Y.2d 891 ; Zapata v. City of New York, supra; Ortiz v. New York City Hous. Auth., 201 A.D.2d 547 ).


Summaries of

Ryan v. County of Nassau

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 3, 2000
271 A.D.2d 428 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Ryan v. County of Nassau

Case Details

Full title:ELIZABETH RYAN, respondent, v. COUNTY OF NASSAU, defendant, INCORPORATED…

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

Date published: Apr 3, 2000

Citations

271 A.D.2d 428 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
705 N.Y.S.2d 398

Citing Cases

Palmer v. Society for Seamen's Children

According to the City, the Society determined that Jermel's health condition did not warrant removal from the…

Ouljihate v. Commack Union Free Sch. Dist.

In any event, those photographs were still lacking in specificity. As such, the plaintiff failed to comply…