Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1915

Wesley v. City of New York

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided February 4, 1915

151 N.Y.S. 587 (New York Supplement)

Counsel

Gilbert Ray Hawes, of New York City, for appellant., Frank L. Polk, Corp. Counsel, of New York City (Terence Farley and Clarence L. Barber, both of New York City, of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

The notice of claim filed with the comptroller in this case was a substantial compliance with the provisions of section 261 of the Greater New York Charter, save in one particular. It is fatally defective in that it contains no notice of intention to commence an action thereon. Bernreither v. City of New York, 196 N. Y. 506, 89 N. E. 1096, affirming same case 123 App. Div. 291, 107 N. Y. Supp. 1006; Wagner v. City of New York, 160 App. Div. 586, 145 N. Y. Supp. 683; Forsyth v. Oswego, 191 N. Y. 441, 84 N. E. 392, 123 Am. St. Rep. 605; Purdy v. City of New York, 193 N. Y. 521, 86 N. E. 560.

Although the record discloses a case of great hardship, we cannot do otherwise than follow the decisions upon the point involved. The judgment must be affirmed, with costs.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.