Abbot v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Abbot v. City of New York

271 A.D.2d 364, 707 N.Y.S.2d 88, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4616

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 25, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 271 A.D.2d 364 (Abbot v. City of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Abbot v. City of New York, 271 A.D.2d 364, 707 N.Y.S.2d 88, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4616 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Braun, J.), entered on or about April 6, 1999, which granted the petition pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e to the extent of deeming petitioner’s notice of claim timely served nunc pro tunc, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court properly exercised its discretion, since consideration of the various pertinent factors “militates in favor of granting” petitioner’s application (Ali v Bunny Realty Corp., 253 AD2d 356, 357). It is not disputed that an April 1981 inspection of the subject apartment conducted by a bureau of the Department of Health found lead paint levels in violation of the City Health Code. The City does not deny that it received, through the Department of Housing Preservation and Development, the May 1981 “[abatement] order to Landlord/ Agent”, and the City apparently concedes that it removed the lead violations in July 1981. Thus, the City, through its agencies, had timely knowledge of the facts underlying petitioner’s claim; it had the opportunity to investigate the matter and in fact did so.

The City has not demonstrated any substantial prejudice attributable to the passage of time.

Finally, although petitioner does not offer a reasonable excuse as to why he waited until more than a year after reaching his majority to commence this lawsuit, we do not, under all the relevant circumstances, find such omission fatal to his application (see, Diallo v City of New York, 224 AD2d 339). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Tom, Wallach and Saxe, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Braun, J.), entered on or about April 6, 1999, which granted the petition pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e to the extent of deeming petitioner’s notice of claim timely served nunc pro tunc, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court properly exercised its discretion, since consideration of the various pertinent factors “militates in favor of granting” petitioner’s application (Ali v Bunny Realty Corp., 253 AD2d 356, 357). It is not disputed that an April 1981 inspection of the subject apartment conducted by a bureau of the Department of Health found lead paint levels in violation of the City Health Code. The City does not deny that it received, through the Department of Housing Preservation and Development, the May 1981 “[abatement] order to Landlord/ Agent”, and the City apparently concedes that it removed the lead violations in July 1981. Thus, the City, through its agencies, had timely knowledge of the facts underlying petitioner’s claim; it had the opportunity to investigate the matter and in fact did so.

The City has not demonstrated any substantial prejudice attributable to the passage of time.

Finally, although petitioner does not offer a reasonable excuse as to why he waited until more than a year after reaching his majority to commence this lawsuit, we do not, under all the relevant circumstances, find such omission fatal to his application (see, Diallo v City of New York, 224 AD2d 339). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Tom, Wallach and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 A.D.2d 364, 707 N.Y.S.2d 88, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4616, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abbot-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack