2 No. 105
Robert Brown,
Appellant,
v.
City of New York,
Respondent.
_________________________________________________________________
2000 NY Int. 119
November 16, 2000
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
Arnold E. DiJoseph, III, for appellant.
Linda H. Young, for respondent.
_________________________________________________________________
KAYE, CHIEF JUDGE:
This appeal tests the sufficiency of a Notice of Claim required for
suit against a municipality (General Municipal Law § 50-e). The
Appellate Division, after a verdict in plaintiff's favor for personal
injuries resulting from a fall on a New York City sidewalk, affirmed
the trial court's dismissal of the complaint on the ground that
"plaintiff failed to notify the City in his notice of claim of the
location of the defect which he claimed at trial was the cause of his
accident" (265 2 284). Concluding that notice was adequate, we now
reverse.
Shortly after falling on a Brooklyn sidewalk, plaintiff served a
Notice of Claim on the City, alleging:
"The accident occurred on December 2, 1993, at or about 11:00 a.m.,
when claimant sustained fractures to his right leg and ankle after
tripping on a broken and defective portion of sidewalk and curb,
located on West 33rd Street, approximately 65 feet and 7 inches
south of the southwest corner of Mermaid Avenue and West 33rd
Street, and 8 feet and 4 inches east from the lot line on the west
side of West 33rd Street, in the County of Kings, City and State of
New York. * * * The defective area is approximately eight inches
wide and approximately 2 inches deep" (emphasis added).
Three pictures of the accident site--each containing a circle drawn
around the curb that extended to include a small portion of the
SNIPPETS:
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
This appeal tests the sufficiency of a Notice of Claim required for suit against a
The Appellate Division, after a verdict in plaintiff's favor for personal injuries resulting
"The accident occurred on December 2, 1993, at or about 11:00 a.m., when claimant sustained
Three pictures of the accident site--each containing a circle drawn around the curb that
"The photograph annexed hereto and designated as '1' depicts the location of the aforesaid
At a hearing conducted pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h, which permits the City to
Thus, the Trial Judge instructed the jury that plaintiff could recover only if they found
The City moved to set aside the verdict, alleging among other grounds, that the Notice of
The court additionally concluded the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.
We now reverse and remit to the Appellate Division for consideration of additional issues not
To enable authorities to investigate, collect evidence and evaluate the merit of a claim,
The test of the sufficiency of a Notice of Claim is merely "whether it includes information
"Nothing more may be required" (Schwartz v City of New York, supra, 250 NY, at 335).
Although the circles centered on the curb and included only a small portion of the sidewalk,
ater materially contradicted herself); Bacchus v City of New York, 134 AD2d 393, 394; Krug v City
A Notice of Claim serves an important public purpose, enabling authorities to promptly
Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and the case
|
