Jones v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jones v. New York City Housing Authority

198 A.D.2d 211, 604 N.Y.S.2d 789, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10205

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

DecidedNovember 1, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 198 A.D.2d 211 (Jones 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

Jones v. New York City Housing Authority, 198 A.D.2d 211, 604 N.Y.S.2d 789, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10205 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) for leave to serve a late notice of claim, the appeal is from a [212]*212judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated July 17,1991, which granted the application.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

It appears from the record that the respondent New York City Housing Authority received knowledge of the facts of this matter within the time that a notice of claim was required to have been served, and was not prejudiced by the delay (see, Matter of Irizarry v New York City Hous. Auth., 167 AD2d 466). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in granting leave to file a late notice of claim. Thompson, J. P., Sullivan, Ritter and Joy, 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 appeal is from a [212]*212judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated July 17,1991, which granted the application.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

It appears from the record that the respondent New York City Housing Authority received knowledge of the facts of this matter within the time that a notice of claim was required to have been served, and was not prejudiced by the delay (see, Matter of Irizarry v New York City Hous. Auth., 167 AD2d 466). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in granting leave to file a late notice of claim. Thompson, J. P., Sullivan, Ritter and Joy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 A.D.2d 211, 604 N.Y.S.2d 789, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10205, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack