What's New...
What's New
November 2025 Why is a notice of claim crucial in city and municipality cases? Unlike lawsuits involving private entities, state and local governments (towns, villages, hamlets, etc.) or their public agencies must generally be placed on notice of an injury within very tight time windows. In New York, this is generally 90 days from the date of an accident or injury. A recent decision from the Second Department of the New York Appellate Division underscores the importance of making a timely filing here.
In the instant case involving personal injury, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County. The matter involves a cross-motion of defendant New York City Transit Authority, which had been sued, in a summary judgment dismissing the complaint asserted against them.
The plaintiff in this case had been injured after tripping and falling on a sidewalk in Staten Island. Plaintiff served a notice of claim on defendants New York City Transit Authority, which had been sued in the lawsuit as New York Transit Authority, and MTA Bus Company.
The transit defendants cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the grounds that the notice of claim did not comply with General Municipal Law § 50-e. Plaintiff opposed the motion the transit defendants' cross-motion. Thereafter, plaintiff appealed.
In hearing the matter, the court referred to New York Municipal Law and a number New York court decisions, holding that, "To enable authorities to investigate, collect evidence and evaluate the merit of a claim, persons seeking to recover in tort against a municipality are required, as a precondition to suit, to serve a Notice of Claim"... Brown v City of New York, 95 NY2d 389, 392; Burgos v City of New York, 202 AD3d 744, 745). The court pointed to General Municipal Law § 50-e(2), requiring that a Notice of Claim must set forth, "the nature of the claim" and "the time when, the place where and the manner in which the claim arose" (Washington v City of New York, 190 AD3d 1009, 1011).
The Court ruled for the NYCTA on the basis that they demonstrated, prima facie, that the notice of claim failed to describe the location of the subject accident with sufficient specificity. Read more NY Slip Op 05793
In the instant case involving personal injury, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County. The matter involves a cross-motion of defendant New York City Transit Authority, which had been sued, in a summary judgment dismissing the complaint asserted against them.
The plaintiff in this case had been injured after tripping and falling on a sidewalk in Staten Island. Plaintiff served a notice of claim on defendants New York City Transit Authority, which had been sued in the lawsuit as New York Transit Authority, and MTA Bus Company.
The transit defendants cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the grounds that the notice of claim did not comply with General Municipal Law § 50-e. Plaintiff opposed the motion the transit defendants' cross-motion. Thereafter, plaintiff appealed.
In hearing the matter, the court referred to New York Municipal Law and a number New York court decisions, holding that, "To enable authorities to investigate, collect evidence and evaluate the merit of a claim, persons seeking to recover in tort against a municipality are required, as a precondition to suit, to serve a Notice of Claim"... Brown v City of New York, 95 NY2d 389, 392; Burgos v City of New York, 202 AD3d 744, 745). The court pointed to General Municipal Law § 50-e(2), requiring that a Notice of Claim must set forth, "the nature of the claim" and "the time when, the place where and the manner in which the claim arose" (Washington v City of New York, 190 AD3d 1009, 1011).
The Court ruled for the NYCTA on the basis that they demonstrated, prima facie, that the notice of claim failed to describe the location of the subject accident with sufficient specificity. Read more NY Slip Op 05793
