Skip to Main Content
Services Talent Knowledge
Site Search


Our attorneys stay on top of changes in legislation, agency regulations, case law, and industry trends—then craft timely legal alerts to keep clients up to date on legal developments important to their business.

May 28, 2020

Co-Claimants Not Entitled to Observe GML § 50-h Oral Examinations

New York State’s General Municipal Law gives municipalities an early opportunity to investigate tort claims and explore the facts while information is readily available with a view toward settlement. GML § 50-h provides for both an oral and physical examination of a claimant following the filing of a notice of claim to ascertain the occurrence and extent of any injuries. Failing to comply with a municipality’s pre-suit investigation is grounds for dismissal of a later action.

The value of an early claim investigation to a municipality was recently highlighted by the Court of Appeals’ decision in Colon v. Martin, which affirmed the dismissal of an action in favor of a municipality after two plaintiffs failed to comply with the requirements of GML § 50-h. The plaintiffs contended their vehicle was rear-ended by a pickup truck owned by a municipality and driven by a municipal employee. Although both plaintiffs appeared for their oral examinations as scheduled, their attorney refused to let the examinations proceed unless each plaintiff could be present while the other testified. The municipality rejected the plaintiffs’ demanded procedure, the parties failed to reach an accord, and no examinations ever occurred.

Affirming both the decisions of the Appellate Division and the motion court, the Court of Appeals rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the municipal defendants constructively waived their right to the examinations by refusing to conduct them simultaneously. The plaintiffs argued the wording of the statute—which allows the examination of a claimant in the presence of their own personal physician and “such relative or other person as he or she may elect”—applied to both the oral and physical examinations. However, in carefully analyzing the statutory language, the Court of Appeals held that a claimant’s right to be accompanied by a physician and “relative or other person” applied only to a pre-suit physical examination—not an oral examination.

The Colon case highlights the value of the municipality’s pre-suit investigation process along with the importance of carefully complying with protections afforded to a municipality at this critical stage. While co-claimants aren’t precluded from observing each other’s hearings in the absence of an objection from the municipality, they don’t have the right to insist that co-claimants be allowed to attend each other’s oral examination.

If you have questions regarding the content of this alert, please contact Steven Mach, associate, at or another member of the firm’s Torts & Products Liability Defense Practice Area.


Click here to sign up for alerts, blog posts, and firm news.

Featured Media


Louisiana Federal Judge Expands Injunction Prohibiting Enforcement of CMS Vaccine Mandate Nationwide


Revised IRS Form 8038-CP


The IRS Clarifies Standards for LLCs to Receive Determination Letter of 501(c)(3) Status


NYS OPWDD Issues Vaccine Guidance to ICFs


State and Federal Regulations Require NYS Health Care and Human Services Facilities to Implement Vaccine Mandates


Tax-Exempt Bond Provisions Included in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act

This site uses cookies to give you the best experience possible on our site and in some cases direct advertisements to you based upon your use of our site.

By clicking [I agree], you are agreeing to our use of cookies. For information on what cookies we use and how to manage our use of cookies, please visit our Privacy Statement.

I AgreeOpt-Out