Clark v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Clark v. New York City Housing Authority

202 A.D.2d 350, 609 N.Y.S.2d 229

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

DecidedMarch 29, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 202 A.D.2d 350 (Clark 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

Clark v. New York City Housing Authority, 202 A.D.2d 350, 609 N.Y.S.2d 229 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Kings County (Randolph Jackson, J.), entered on or about March 6, 1992, which denied defendant New York City Housing Authority’s (NYCHA) motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, and granted defendant City of New York’s cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the IAS Court that the notice of claim, read together with the accident report previously prepared by NYCHA’s employee, provided NYCHA with sufficient information as to the location of the alleged accident to enable it to investigate the claim, and thus satisfied the requirements of General Municipal Law § 50-e (2). Nor has NYCHA established as a matter of law that its grounds were maintained in a manner that satisfied its duty as landowner (Basso v Miller, 40 NY2d 233). Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Kupferman, Ross, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Kings County (Randolph Jackson, J.), entered on or about March 6, 1992, which denied defendant New York City Housing Authority’s (NYCHA) motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, and granted defendant City of New York’s cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the IAS Court that the notice of claim, read together with the accident report previously prepared by NYCHA’s employee, provided NYCHA with sufficient information as to the location of the alleged accident to enable it to investigate the claim, and thus satisfied the requirements of General Municipal Law § 50-e (2). Nor has NYCHA established as a matter of law that its grounds were maintained in a manner that satisfied its duty as landowner (Basso v Miller, 40 NY2d 233). Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Kupferman, Ross, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 A.D.2d 350, 609 N.Y.S.2d 229, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clark-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack