Legal Opinion
Ragosto v. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Authority
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
Decided April 17, 1997PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*561OPINION OF THE COURT
2Per curiam
Order dated September 16, 1996 affirmed, without costs.
Pursuant to the terms of General Municipal Law § 50-e (1) (a), the plaintiff was required to serve a notice of claim within 90 days of the occurrence because his small claims action— seeking damages against various employees of the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority for "harassment” — was one "founded upon tort” and because service of a notice of claim was a "condition precedent to the commencement of [his] action” (General Municipal Law § 50-e [1] [a]; see, Public Authorities Law § 569-a). In view of the…
3Cases cited7 opinions
- Pierson v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1982
- Adkins v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1977
- Mojica v. New York City Transit AuthorityAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1986
- Jackson v. Police DepartmentAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1986
- Guillan v. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel AuthorityAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
4Cited by4 opinions
- Carren v. Westchester County Community CollegeMount Vernon City Court · 1998
- Frazier v. City of New YorkAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 2016
- Mahmoud Aburadwan v. Gregory E. Ramirez, The City of New York, The New York City Department of SanitationDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 2025
- McGillicuddy v. Rush Henrietta Central School DistrictHenrietta Justice Court · 1997