Cheeseboro v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cheeseboro v. New York City Housing Authority

55 A.D.3d 428, 864 N.Y.S.2d 919

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

DecidedOctober 23, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 55 A.D.3d 428 (Cheeseboro 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

Cheeseboro v. New York City Housing Authority, 55 A.D.3d 428, 864 N.Y.S.2d 919 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karen S. Smith, J), entered December 12, 2007, which denied defendant New York City Housing Authority’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs complaint for failure to appear for an oral examination pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to direct that plaintiff submit to a section 50-h hearing within 30 days of service of a copy of this order, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Denial of defendant’s motion was appropriate, where plaintiffs scheduled section 50-h hearing was adjourned on consent.

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Lippman, EJ., Andrias, Saxe, Sweeny and DeGrasse, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karen S. Smith, J), entered December 12, 2007, which denied defendant New York City Housing Authority’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs complaint for failure to appear for an oral examination pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to direct that plaintiff submit to a section 50-h hearing within 30 days of service of a copy of this order, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Denial of defendant’s motion was appropriate, where plaintiffs scheduled section 50-h hearing was adjourned on consent.

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Lippman, EJ., Andrias, Saxe, Sweeny and DeGrasse, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 A.D.3d 428, 864 N.Y.S.2d 919, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cheeseboro-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack