Case Name: Lucia Di Bartolo et al., Respondents, v. City of New York, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1944-01-28
Citations: 267 A.D. 351
Docket Number: 
Parties: Lucia Di Bartolo et al., Respondents, v. City of New York, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 267
Pages: 351–353

Head Matter:
Lucia Di Bartolo et al., Respondents, v. City of New York, Appellant.
First Department,
January 28, 1944.
Robert J. Keegan, Jr., of counsel (Murray Sendler with him on the brief; Ignatius M. Wilkinson, Corf oration Counsel), for appellant.
Harry Fieldsteel of counsel (Rao, Liggio & Cannella, attorneys), for respondents.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
There was full compliance with section 394a-l.Q of the Administrative Code of the City of New York (L. 1937, ch. 929). To the extent that the defendant relies on the stipulation of the parties to establish that the action is premature, it was incumbent on the defendant to plead that special agreement in its answer as an affirmative defense.
The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.