Jackson v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jackson v. New York City Housing Authority

46 A.D.3d 297, 845 N.Y.S.2d 912

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

DecidedDecember 6, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 46 A.D.3d 297 (Jackson 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

Jackson v. New York City Housing Authority, 46 A.D.3d 297, 845 N.Y.S.2d 912 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mark Friedlander, J.), entered March 8, 2006, which granted defendant’s motion to strike portions of the complaint and bill of particulars, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and those portions reinstated.

The notice of claim sufficiently enabled defendant to “locate the place, fix the time and understand the nature” of the claim (Brown v City of New York, 95 NY2d 389, 393 [2000]) so it could “investigate, collect evidence and evaluate the merit of [that] claim” (id. at 392). Plaintiffs later allegations did not raise a new, distinct and independent theory of liability so as to prejudice defendant in its investigation and evaluation of the claim (cf. Monmasterio v New York City Hous. Auth., 39 AD3d 354 [2007]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Friedman, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mark Friedlander, J.), entered March 8, 2006, which granted defendant’s motion to strike portions of the complaint and bill of particulars, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and those portions reinstated.

The notice of claim sufficiently enabled defendant to “locate the place, fix the time and understand the nature” of the claim (Brown v City of New York, 95 NY2d 389, 393 [2000]) so it could “investigate, collect evidence and evaluate the merit of [that] claim” (id. at 392). Plaintiffs later allegations did not raise a new, distinct and independent theory of liability so as to prejudice defendant in its investigation and evaluation of the claim (cf. Monmasterio v New York City Hous. Auth., 39 AD3d 354 [2007]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Friedman, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 A.D.3d 297, 845 N.Y.S.2d 912, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jackson-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack