Case Name: MURPHY v. VILLAGE OF FT. EDWARD
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1913-11-26
Citations: 144 N.Y.S. 451
Docket Number: 
Parties: MURPHY v. VILLAGE OF FT. EDWARD.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 144
Pages: 451–452

Head Matter:
(159 App. Div. 471.)
MURPHY v. VILLAGE OF FT. EDWARD.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.
November 26, 1913.)
Municipal Corporations (§ 812 )—Actions—Conditions Precedent.
Notwithstanding Village Law (Consol. Laws 1909, c. 64) § 341, providing that no action shall be maintained against a village for damages for a personal injury, unless a written verified statement of the nature of the claim, and of the time and place at which the injury is alleged to have been received, shall be filed with the village clerk within 60 days after the cause of action shall have accrued, a child 5 years old is not precluded from bringing such an action because of its failure, and the failure of its father or mother, to file such notice.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Municipal Corporations, Cent. Dig. §§ 1696-1707; Dec. Dig. § 812.*!
Kellogg, J., dissenting.'
On reargument. Former decision overruled, j'udgment dismissing the complaint and order setting aside the verdict reversed, and verdict for plaintiff reinstated.
For former opinion, see 158 App. Div. 343, 143 N. Y. Supp. 378.
See, also, 143 N. Y. Supp. 1132.
Argued before SMITH, P. J., and KELLOGG, LYON, HOWARD, and WOODWARD, JJ.
Rogers & Sawyer, of Hudson Falls (John E. Sawyer, of Hudson Falls, of counsel), for appellant.
Wyman S. Bascom, of Ft. Edward, for respondent.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This case upon appeal was argued and decided, the report of which is contained in 158 App. Div. 343, 143 N. Y. Supp. 378. Upon reargument, the majority of the court is of opinion that it should be held by this court that a child five years of age is not precluded from bringing an action against a village by failure to file, with in the time prescribed by law, the notice specified in section 341 of the Village Law, and, further, that a child of that age should not be prejudiced by the failure of its father or mother to file the same.
With these views, it follows that the judgment dismissing the complaint, and also the order setting aside the verdict for the plaintiff, should be reversed, and the verdict for the plaintiff for $1,000 should be reinstated, and judgment directed thereupon.