Claim of Odom v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Odom v. New York City Housing Authority

17 A.D.2d 770, 232 N.Y.S.2d 287, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7925

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

DecidedOctober 2, 1962

StatusPublished

This text of 17 A.D.2d 770 (Claim of Odom 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

Claim of Odom v. New York City Housing Authority, 17 A.D.2d 770, 232 N.Y.S.2d 287, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7925 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinions

Order, entered on April 24, 1962, granting permission to file a late notice of claim against the New York City Housing Authority, reversed on the law and the facts, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant, and the application denied, with $10 costs. The failure to file the notice of claim with the appropriate public agency within the prescribed period of time was due to the inadvertence of counsel. An examination of official files supports the inference contained in the record that the infant had counsel within the 90-day period for the filing of a notice. Accordingly, such failure was not “by reason of” the disability of infancy so as to permit an extension of the statutory period under subdivision 5 of section 50-e of the General Municipal Law (Matter of Goglas v. New York City Housing Auth., 13 A D 2d 939). Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin and Steuer, JJ.;

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

Order, entered on April 24, 1962, granting permission to file a late notice of claim against the New York City Housing Authority, reversed on the law and the facts, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant, and the application denied, with $10 costs. The failure to file the notice of claim with the appropriate public agency within the prescribed period of time was due to the inadvertence of counsel. An examination of official files supports the inference contained in the record that the infant had counsel within the 90-day period for the filing of a notice. Accordingly, such failure was not “by reason of” the disability of infancy so as to permit an extension of the statutory period under subdivision 5 of section 50-e of the General Municipal Law (Matter of Goglas v. New York City Housing Auth., 13 A D 2d 939). Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin and Steuer, JJ.;

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 A.D.2d 770, 232 N.Y.S.2d 287, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7925, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-odom-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-1962.