Guzman v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Guzman v. New York City Housing Authority

1 A.D.3d 276, 767 N.Y.S.2d 583, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12584

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

DecidedNovember 25, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 1 A.D.3d 276 (Guzman 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

Guzman v. New York City Housing Authority, 1 A.D.3d 276, 767 N.Y.S.2d 583, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12584 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Robert Straus, J.), entered July 23, 2002, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant New York City Housing Authority’s motion to dismiss the complaint for plaintiffs failure to comply with appellant’s demands for physical and oral examinations pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff provided a reasonable excuse for her failure to appear at the noticed examinations. Unlike the plaintiff in Best v City of New York (97 AD2d 389 [1983], affd 61 NY2d 847 [1984]), plaintiff here did not repeatedly schedule the examinations and then fail to appear. Moreover, appellant acquired early actual knowledge of the facts constituting the claim and was not substantially prejudiced by the delay (see Jusino v New York City Hous. Auth., 255 AD2d 41, 46-47 [1999]). Concur—Buckley, PJ., Tom, Ellerin and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Robert Straus, J.), entered July 23, 2002, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant New York City Housing Authority’s motion to dismiss the complaint for plaintiffs failure to comply with appellant’s demands for physical and oral examinations pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff provided a reasonable excuse for her failure to appear at the noticed examinations. Unlike the plaintiff in Best v City of New York (97 AD2d 389 [1983], affd 61 NY2d 847 [1984]), plaintiff here did not repeatedly schedule the examinations and then fail to appear. Moreover, appellant acquired early actual knowledge of the facts constituting the claim and was not substantially prejudiced by the delay (see Jusino v New York City Hous. Auth., 255 AD2d 41, 46-47 [1999]). Concur—Buckley, PJ., Tom, Ellerin and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 A.D.3d 276, 767 N.Y.S.2d 583, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12584, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guzman-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack