From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cron v. City of N.Y.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Oct 28, 2014
121 A.D.3d 601 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)

Opinion

13338, 114535/11.

10-28-2014

Loretta CRON, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant–Appellant, Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., Defendant–Respondent, Empire City Subway Company, Defendant.

Morris Duffy Alonso & Faley, New York (Arjay G. Yao of counsel), for appellant. Levine and Wiss, PLLC, West Hempstead (Anthony A. Ferrante of counsel), for Loretta Cron, respondent. David M. Santoro, New York (Stephen T. Brewi of counsel), for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., respondent.


Morris Duffy Alonso & Faley, New York (Arjay G. Yao of counsel), for appellant.

Levine and Wiss, PLLC, West Hempstead (Anthony A. Ferrante of counsel), for Loretta Cron, respondent.

David M. Santoro, New York (Stephen T. Brewi of counsel), for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., respondent.

FRIEDMAN, J.P., RENWICK, MANZANET–DANIELS, FEINMAN, KAPNICK, JJ.

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Donna M. Mills, J.), entered June 25, 2013, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant City's motion to dismiss the complaint and all cross claims as against it for failure to comply with the notice of claim requirement of General Municipal Law § 50–e, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly determined that the original notice of claim, together with plaintiff's testimony at the 50–h hearing, sufficiently set forth the location of her accident to satisfy the requirements of General Municipal Law § 50–e(2), since it provided “information sufficient to enable the city to investigate” (Brown v. City of New York, 95 N.Y.2d 389, 393, 718 N.Y.S.2d 4, 740 N.E.2d 1078 [2000] ; see D'Alessandro v. New York City Tr. Auth., 83 N.Y.2d 891, 893, 613 N.Y.S.2d 849, 636 N.E.2d 1382 [1994] ). The amended notice of claim, which clarified the location of the alleged accident, was proper pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50–e(6), since the City did not demonstrate any prejudice or contend that plaintiff acted in bad faith (see Goodwin v. New York City Hous. Auth., 42 A.D.3d 63, 66, 834 N.Y.S.2d 181 [1st Dept.2007] ).


Summaries of

Cron v. City of N.Y.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Oct 28, 2014
121 A.D.3d 601 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
Case details for

Cron v. City of N.Y.

Case Details

Full title:Loretta CRON, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. CITY OF NEW YORK…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Oct 28, 2014

Citations

121 A.D.3d 601 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
121 A.D.3d 601
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 7310

Citing Cases

Cron v. City of N.Y.

Previously, the City moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety for failure to comply with General…

Cron v. City of N.Y.

Previously, the City moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety for failure to comply with General…