Bokman v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bokman v. New York City Housing Authority

180 A.D.2d 617, 580 N.Y.S.2d 1017, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1280

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

DecidedFebruary 3, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 180 A.D.2d 617 (Bokman 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

Bokman v. New York City Housing Authority, 180 A.D.2d 617, 580 N.Y.S.2d 1017, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1280 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

In an application pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) for leave to file a late notice of claim, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, [618]*618Kings County (Vinik, J.), dated April 23, 1990, which granted the application.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff proffered a reasonable excuse for the delay in serving her notice of claim one day late, the delay was minimal, and there was no prejudice to the defendant. Consequently, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the plaintiff the requested relief (see, General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]; Matter of Cicio v City of New York, 98 AD2d 38). Mangano, P. J., Sullivan, Balletta and Ritter, JJ., concur.

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

In an application pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) for leave to file a late notice of claim, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, [618]*618Kings County (Vinik, J.), dated April 23, 1990, which granted the application.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff proffered a reasonable excuse for the delay in serving her notice of claim one day late, the delay was minimal, and there was no prejudice to the defendant. Consequently, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the plaintiff the requested relief (see, General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]; Matter of Cicio v City of New York, 98 AD2d 38). Mangano, P. J., Sullivan, Balletta and Ritter, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

180 A.D.2d 617, 580 N.Y.S.2d 1017, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1280, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bokman-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack