Gonzalez v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gonzalez v. City of New York

200 A.D.2d 654, 608 N.Y.S.2d 859, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 551

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

DecidedJanuary 24, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 200 A.D.2d 654 (Gonzalez v. City of New York) 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

Gonzalez v. City of New York, 200 A.D.2d 654, 608 N.Y.S.2d 859, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 551 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant New York City Housing Authority appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bernstein, J.), dated August 29, 1991, which granted the plaintiff’s motion for leave to serve it with a late notice of claim.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Under the circumstances of this case, including the fact that the appellant received actual notice of the plaintiff’s claim within a reasonable time after expiration of the statutory 90-day period, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the plaintiff’s motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim upon the appellant. Mangano, P. J., Balletta, Santucci and Hart, 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 New York City Housing Authority appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bernstein, J.), dated August 29, 1991, which granted the plaintiff’s motion for leave to serve it with a late notice of claim.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Under the circumstances of this case, including the fact that the appellant received actual notice of the plaintiff’s claim within a reasonable time after expiration of the statutory 90-day period, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the plaintiff’s motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim upon the appellant. Mangano, P. J., Balletta, Santucci and Hart, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

200 A.D.2d 654, 608 N.Y.S.2d 859, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 551, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gonzalez-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1994.