Ahferom v. Dormitory Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ahferom v. Dormitory Authority

282 A.D.2d 343, 723 N.Y.S.2d 367, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3895

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

DecidedApril 19, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 282 A.D.2d 343 (Ahferom v. Dormitory Authority) 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

Ahferom v. Dormitory Authority, 282 A.D.2d 343, 723 N.Y.S.2d 367, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3895 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Joseph Giamboi, J.), entered October 31, 2000, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant Dormitory Authority’s motion [344]*344to strike and granted plaintiffs cross motion to file a late notice of claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Where, as here, the delay is relatively short, and the public entity opposing late notice makes no showing of resultant prejudice, the grant of leave to file a late notice of claim constitutes a proper exercise of discretion pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (see, Matter of Thornhill v New York City Hous. Auth., 232 AD2d 317; Matter of Rivas v New York City Hous. Auth., 188 AD2d 390). Defendant-appellant’s claim that the motion court was without jurisdiction to entertain plaintiffs cross motion is plainly without merit (see, General Municipal Law § 50-e [7]). Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Mazzarelli, Ellerin, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Joseph Giamboi, J.), entered October 31, 2000, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant Dormitory Authority’s motion [344]*344to strike and granted plaintiffs cross motion to file a late notice of claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Where, as here, the delay is relatively short, and the public entity opposing late notice makes no showing of resultant prejudice, the grant of leave to file a late notice of claim constitutes a proper exercise of discretion pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (see, Matter of Thornhill v New York City Hous. Auth., 232 AD2d 317; Matter of Rivas v New York City Hous. Auth., 188 AD2d 390). Defendant-appellant’s claim that the motion court was without jurisdiction to entertain plaintiffs cross motion is plainly without merit (see, General Municipal Law § 50-e [7]). Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Mazzarelli, Ellerin, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D.2d 343, 723 N.Y.S.2d 367, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3895, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ahferom-v-dormitory-authority-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack