Cruz v. New York City Housing Authority

178 A.D.2d 291, 577 N.Y.S.2d 376, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16358
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 17, 1991
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 178 A.D.2d 291 (Cruz 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
Cruz v. New York City Housing Authority, 178 A.D.2d 291, 577 N.Y.S.2d 376, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16358 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Anita Florio, J.), entered October 25, 1990, which granted plaintiff leave to serve a late notice of claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

On April 7, 1990, plaintiff was allegedly injured when she fell due to an accumulation of excess wax and milk on the hallway floor of her apartment building. Defendant disputed plaintiff’s allegation that two days after the accident, she completed an accident report at the New York City Housing Authority Management offices at the Baychester Housing Projects. One day prior to the expiration of the 90-day statutory period within which to file notice of claim, plaintiff served a notice correctly identifying defendant, but at the office of Corporation Counsel of the City of New York. Eleven days after expiration of the statutory period, plaintiff moved for permission to serve a late notice of claim upon the proper entity.

It is well settled that General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) permits the court to consider all relevant factors and to exercise considerable discretion in determining whether to permit service of a late notice of claim (see, Matter of Mazzilli v City of New York, 115 AD2d 604, 605). The IAS court acted well within its discretion in concluding that plaintiff’s inadvertent service upon the City of New York excused the extremely minor delay and that defendant was not in any way prejudiced thereby (see, Simmons v New York City Hous. Auth., 161 AD2d 377). Concur—Carro, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Kupferman and Ross, JJ.

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

Related

Lozada v. City of New York
189 A.D.2d 726 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
Cabezas v. City of New York
184 A.D.2d 240 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
Jenkins v. New York City Housing Authority
181 A.D.2d 506 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
Soto v. New York City Housing Authority
180 A.D.2d 570 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
178 A.D.2d 291, 577 N.Y.S.2d 376, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16358, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cruz-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-1991.