Legal Opinion

McDonough v. Mayor of New York

New York Supreme Court

Decided January 15, 1896PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Motion by the plaintiff for a new trial. The opinion states the material facts.

1Opinion of the CourtGiegerich, J.

This action is brought for the recovery of damages for injuries alleged to have been caused by defendant’s negligence. Before plaintiff' opened his case the defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the former had not complied with section 1104 of the Consolidation Act (Laws of 1882, chap. 410), which provides as follows: “So action or special proceeding shall be prosecuted or maintained against the said mayor,- aldermen and commonalty unless it shall appear by, and as an allegation in, the comnlaint or neces*594sary moving papers, that at least thirty days have elapsed since…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Harrigan v. . City of BrooklynNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
  2. Sherman v. Village of OneontaNew York Supreme Court · 1892

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Pulitzer v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1900
  2. Flaxman v. City of New YorkNew York Supreme Court · 1916
  3. Norton v. Mayor of New YorkNew York Supreme Court · 1896
  4. Pulitzer v. City of New YorkNew York Supreme Court · 1899

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

Powered by the Exa API