NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIREMENT
Before one can bring a lawsuit to collect damages against a city, town, or a public agency in the state of New York, a notice of claim requirement must be satisfied. A claimant has ninety days during which to file and comply with the notice of claim requirement or they will be barred from bringing the action. This is not the same as the statute of limitations. The statute of limitations against municipalities is one year and ninety days as opposed to the normal statute of limitations for personal injury matters in New York which is three years.
One of the main purposes of the notice of claim requirement is to give the government a thirty-day time window upon receipt of the notice of claim to request a “50-H” hearing. This hearing is somewhat like a deposition and it is an advantage that non-government entities do not receive. It gives the government an extra opportunity to acquire information and testimony it may use to defeat a claim. The government may also request a medical examination during this thirty-day time period. Every municipality has the power to designate who must be served with the notice of claim and if the notice of claim requirement is not satisfied, the claim itself will be barred forever. It is important to determine who it should be served on before attempting to serve a notice of claim.
It is advisable to speak with an experienced personal injury attorney before attempting to comply with the notice of claim requirement. The barring of the action for failure to comply with the notice of claim requirement is a strict penalty and not worth the risk of attempting this task pro se.
Personal Injury Attorney
Retaining an attorney that understands the process of suing a municipality can make all the difference in your case. When you or a loved one are injured by the negligence of a municipality, you need a personal injury attorney who understands the process. Call the Law Firm of Vaughn, Weber & Prakope, PLLC at 516-858-2620 to speak to an experienced personal injury attorney.
This article is intended to give some insight into some interesting New York caselaw with regards to premises liability.
Eischelbaum v. Douglas Elliman, LLC, 52 AD3d 210 – a real estate broker does not possess the required level of control over a property they are showing to be held liable for dangerous conditions on the property.
Johnson v. City of New York, 7 A.D.3d 577 – when a property manager is furnished with violent crime statistics by housing authority police, a question of fact exists as to forseeability of crime and the need for security.
Singh v. United Cerebral Palsy of New York City, Inc., 72 AD3d 272 – where there is no exclusive service agreement for malfunctioning automatic elevator door for the premises, an issue of fact exists as to exclusive control and where premises liability lies.
These are a few of the issues that arise with premises liability actions in New York. And the fact of the matter is that this type of personal injury action is very complex. But, it is important to grasp premises liability concepts because not knowing where liability lies, can cost you a very lucrative award for injuries that are sustained at the premises.
The standard of care is that a landlord or property owner has a duty to maintain the property in a reasonably safe manner. Other factors that arise in these cases are the duty to warn, relationship of plaintiff to the property (tenant, licensee, etc.), forseeability, dangerous conditions, defects in design or construction and actual and constructive notice.
Personal Injury Attorneys
If you or someone you know has been injured on a piece of property owned by another person, call the Law Firm of Vaughn, Weber & Prakope, PLLC at (516) 858-2620 to speak to a personal injury attorney.