Legal Opinion

Tannenbaum v. City of New York, New York City Rapid Transit System

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Decided June 15, 1944PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

Memorandum Per Curiam.

The acknowledged but unverified notice of claim served herein did not constitute compliance with section 394a-1.0 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York (L. 1937, ch. 929). (Cf. Matter of Bristol v. Buck, 201 App. Div. 100, affd. 234 N. Y. 504; Matter of Passero & Sons, Inc., 237 App. Div. 638; Geelan v. St. Patrick’s Church of West Neck, 179 Misc. 432.) The Comptroller’s acceptance and retention of plaintiff’s affidavit in lieu of an examination did not effect a waiver on the part of the City of compliance with the statute. (Lewis v. City of New York, 278 N.…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. In re James Passero & Sons, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1933
  2. Bristol v. BuckAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1922
  3. Matter of Bristol v. . BuckNew York Court of Appeals · 1922
  4. Lewis v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1938
  5. Schlicher v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1942

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Tannenbaum v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1945

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API