Davis v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Davis v. New York City Housing Authority

200 A.D.2d 606, 606 N.Y.S.2d 718, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 372

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

DecidedJanuary 18, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 200 A.D.2d 606 (Davis 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

Davis v. New York City Housing Authority, 200 A.D.2d 606, 606 N.Y.S.2d 718, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 372 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Yoswein, J.), dated September 23, 1991, as denied its motion to dismiss the action pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) and granted the plaintiff’s cross motion for leave to serve an amended notice of claim.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff allegedly sustained injury on October 25, 1986, when she fell while descending a stairway in a building owned by the defendant. While the notice of claim, which was filed on December 3, 1986, did not identify the precise location of the incident within the building, the plaintiff provided the necessary facts in her testimony at a hearing pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h on February 5, 1987. In addi[607]*607tion, the defendant failed to adequately rebut the plaintiffs claim that she informed two housing authority employees of the incident when the housing project’s management office opened on Monday, October 27, 1986.

Considering the nature of the alleged cause of the plaintiffs fall, i.e., debris on the stairway, the defendant failed to demonstrate that it was prejudiced by any deficiency in the original notice of claim. The Supreme Court therefore did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the plaintiffs cross motion for leave to serve an amended notice of claim (see, Caselli v City of New York, 105 AD2d 251, 254). Ritter, J. P., Copertino, Pizzuto and Joy, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Yoswein, J.), dated September 23, 1991, as denied its motion to dismiss the action pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) and granted the plaintiff’s cross motion for leave to serve an amended notice of claim.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff allegedly sustained injury on October 25, 1986, when she fell while descending a stairway in a building owned by the defendant. While the notice of claim, which was filed on December 3, 1986, did not identify the precise location of the incident within the building, the plaintiff provided the necessary facts in her testimony at a hearing pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h on February 5, 1987. In addi[607]*607tion, the defendant failed to adequately rebut the plaintiffs claim that she informed two housing authority employees of the incident when the housing project’s management office opened on Monday, October 27, 1986.

Considering the nature of the alleged cause of the plaintiffs fall, i.e., debris on the stairway, the defendant failed to demonstrate that it was prejudiced by any deficiency in the original notice of claim. The Supreme Court therefore did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the plaintiffs cross motion for leave to serve an amended notice of claim (see, Caselli v City of New York, 105 AD2d 251, 254). Ritter, J. P., Copertino, Pizzuto and Joy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

200 A.D.2d 606, 606 N.Y.S.2d 718, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 372, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack