Mercado v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1DissentTom, J.
I respectfully dissent and vote to affirm. The majority, connoting the Corporation Counsel’s appearance *60at the hearing conducted pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h to be representation of defendant Health and Hospitals Corporation (HHC) as the only named defendant, despite that attorney’s appearance on behalf of New York City, relies on the savings clause of General Municipal Law § 50-e (3) (c) to overcome the plaintiffs failure to serve HHC with a notice of claim.
Section 50-e (3) (c) states that if “notice is served within the period specified by this section, but in a manner not in…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Rodriguez v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1991
- Kroin v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994
- Cappadonna v. New York City Transit AuthorityAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992
- Adams v. New York City Transit AuthorityAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1988
- Badgett v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.