Diaz v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Diaz v. New York City Housing Authority

186 A.D.2d 421, 588 N.Y.S.2d 1013, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11331

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

DecidedOctober 13, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 186 A.D.2d 421 (Diaz 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

Diaz v. New York City Housing Authority, 186 A.D.2d 421, 588 N.Y.S.2d 1013, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11331 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Burton S. Sherman, J.), entered on or about November 14, 1991, which denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to serve a proper notice of claim, and granted plaintiffs cross-motion to amend the bill of particulars, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The notice of claim was sufficient to enable defendant New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) to locate any defects and to conduct an investigation at the designated building. [422]*422Thus, the trial court properly denied NYCHA’s motion to dismiss and granted plaintiffs cross-motion to amend the bill of particulars to include the correct building address number (see, Shea v Incorporated Vil. of Head of Harbor, 180 AD2d 675). Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Ross, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.

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

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Burton S. Sherman, J.), entered on or about November 14, 1991, which denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to serve a proper notice of claim, and granted plaintiffs cross-motion to amend the bill of particulars, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The notice of claim was sufficient to enable defendant New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) to locate any defects and to conduct an investigation at the designated building. [422]*422Thus, the trial court properly denied NYCHA’s motion to dismiss and granted plaintiffs cross-motion to amend the bill of particulars to include the correct building address number (see, Shea v Incorporated Vil. of Head of Harbor, 180 AD2d 675). Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Ross, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 A.D.2d 421, 588 N.Y.S.2d 1013, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11331, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/diaz-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack