Garvin v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Garvin v. New York City Housing Authority

46 A.D.3d 308, 846 N.Y.S.2d 578

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

DecidedDecember 11, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 46 A.D.3d 308 (Garvin 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

Garvin v. New York City Housing Authority, 46 A.D.3d 308, 846 N.Y.S.2d 578 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered July 31, 2006, which denied plaintiffs motion to compel depositions and granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court granted plaintiff a 30-day extension of time, in October 2004, to file a late notice of claim, but she never availed herself of that opportunity. Since more than a year and 90 days elapsed from the occurrence upon which plaintiffs personal injury lawsuit is based, the motion court was without authority to correct her second omission (see General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]; Public Housing Law § 157 [2]; Hall v City of New York, 1 AD3d 254 [2003]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them without merit. Concur—Marlow, J.P., Nardelli, Williams and McGuire, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered July 31, 2006, which denied plaintiffs motion to compel depositions and granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court granted plaintiff a 30-day extension of time, in October 2004, to file a late notice of claim, but she never availed herself of that opportunity. Since more than a year and 90 days elapsed from the occurrence upon which plaintiffs personal injury lawsuit is based, the motion court was without authority to correct her second omission (see General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]; Public Housing Law § 157 [2]; Hall v City of New York, 1 AD3d 254 [2003]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them without merit. Concur—Marlow, J.P., Nardelli, Williams and McGuire, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 A.D.3d 308, 846 N.Y.S.2d 578, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garvin-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack