Barzaga v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Barzaga v. New York City Housing Authority

204 A.D.2d 163, 612 N.Y.S.2d 122, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5330

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

DecidedMay 17, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 204 A.D.2d 163 (Barzaga v. New York City Housing 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

Barzaga v. New York City Housing Authority, 204 A.D.2d 163, 612 N.Y.S.2d 122, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5330 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), entered April 15, 1993, which denied claimants’ application for leave to serve a late notice of claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Claimants offer no excuse for failure to timely serve the [164]*164respondent other than a failure to properly research ownership of the premises. Notice of claim was not served upon the respondent until one year and one month after the occurrence, at a time when the condition of the door which allegedly caused claimant’s injury could not be ascertained, resulting in actual prejudice to respondent. The vague and unsubstantiated allegation that the condition was reported to the building superintendent some days after the accident is insufficient to warrant granting the relief sought. (Lopez v New York City Hous. Auth., 193 AD2d 473.) Concur—Murphy, P. J., Carro, Wallach, Asch and Tom, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), entered April 15, 1993, which denied claimants’ application for leave to serve a late notice of claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Claimants offer no excuse for failure to timely serve the [164]*164respondent other than a failure to properly research ownership of the premises. Notice of claim was not served upon the respondent until one year and one month after the occurrence, at a time when the condition of the door which allegedly caused claimant’s injury could not be ascertained, resulting in actual prejudice to respondent. The vague and unsubstantiated allegation that the condition was reported to the building superintendent some days after the accident is insufficient to warrant granting the relief sought. (Lopez v New York City Hous. Auth., 193 AD2d 473.) Concur—Murphy, P. J., Carro, Wallach, Asch and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

204 A.D.2d 163, 612 N.Y.S.2d 122, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5330, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barzaga-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack