Garcia v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Garcia v. New York City Housing Authority

59 A.D.3d 718, 875 N.Y.S.2d 99

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

DecidedFebruary 24, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 59 A.D.3d 718 (Garcia 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

Garcia v. New York City Housing Authority, 59 A.D.3d 718, 875 N.Y.S.2d 99 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) for leave to serve a late notice of claim, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kerrigan, J.), dated January 31, 2008, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

[719]*719Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Although the petitioner demonstrated that the respondent acquired knowledge of the incident and her injuries within 90 days of the occurrence, she failed to establish either that the respondent had acquired knowledge of the essential facts underlying the claim within that time, or that the respondent was not substantially prejudiced by reason of her delay in serving a notice of claim. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition for leave to serve a late notice of claim (see State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v New York City Tr. Auth., 35 AD3d 718 [2006]). Mastro, J.P., Fisher, Florio and Garni, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) for leave to serve a late notice of claim, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kerrigan, J.), dated January 31, 2008, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

[719]*719Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Although the petitioner demonstrated that the respondent acquired knowledge of the incident and her injuries within 90 days of the occurrence, she failed to establish either that the respondent had acquired knowledge of the essential facts underlying the claim within that time, or that the respondent was not substantially prejudiced by reason of her delay in serving a notice of claim. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition for leave to serve a late notice of claim (see State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v New York City Tr. Auth., 35 AD3d 718 [2006]). Mastro, J.P., Fisher, Florio and Garni, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 A.D.3d 718, 875 N.Y.S.2d 99, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garcia-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack