SCRUGGS v. CITY OF NEW YORK (2021)

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, New York,

Seth SCRUGGS, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant-Appellant.

570142 /21

Decided: November 10, 2021

PRESENT: Edmead, P.J., Hagler, Silvera, JJ.

Order (Denise M. Dominguez, J.), entered July 16, 2019, reversed, without costs, cross-motion granted and the complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Plaintiff's failure to comply with General Municipal Law § 50-e(2), by setting forth in his notice of claim “the time when ․ and the manner in which the claim arose,” warranted dismissal of the complaint (see Foster v City of New York, 112 AD3d 783 [2013]; Soto v City of New York, 161 AD2d 246 [1990]). The notice of claim at issue, which merely alleged “digital tapes of a larceny” on a certain No. 6 train platform, did not allege the date and manner in which the purported incident occurred, and contained no reference to any acts or omissions attributable to defendant. Therefore, the notice was too vague to permit defendant to conduct a meaningful investigation into plaintiff's claim and to assess the merits of that claim (see Teresta v City of New York, 304 NY 440, 443 [1952]; Mollerson v City of New York, 8 AD3d 70 [2004]).

In view of our determination, we reach no other issue.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Per Curiam.

All concur.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network