Yankana v. City of New York
Opinion of the Court
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Greenstein, J.), dated September 3, 1996, which granted the cross motion of the defendant City of New York to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it for failure to comply with General Municipal Law § 50-e.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
In the instant case, the court properly granted the City’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it. The notice of claim, which merely stated that the accident occurred “at or about Clarkson Avenue and Rogers Avenue, Brooklyn”, failed to describe the location of the alleged defect with sufficient particularity (see, Harper v City of New York, 129 AD2d 770; see also, Frankfort v City of New York, 159 AD2d 680; Lupo v City of New York, 160 AD2d 773) Contrary to the plaintiffs contentions, neither the photographs nor the General Municipal Law § 50-h hearing sufficiently clarified the notice of claim (see, Matter of Valle v New York City Hous. Auth., 224 AD2d 433; Setton v City of New York, 174 AD2d 723).
We have examined the plaintiffs’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Thompson and Luciano, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.