Lee v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lee v. City of New York

266 A.D.2d 356, 698 N.Y.S.2d 154, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11492

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

DecidedNovember 15, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 266 A.D.2d 356 (Lee 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

Lee v. City of New York, 266 A.D.2d 356, 698 N.Y.S.2d 154, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11492 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant New York City Housing Authority appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), dated May 1, 1998, as denied its cross motion, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the description of the accident location in her notice of claim was insufficient to allow the defendant New York City Housing Authority (hereinafter the Housing Authority) to conduct a proper investigation (see, De Los Santos v New York City Hous. Auth., 214 AD2d 532). Since the notice of claim was deficient, the complaint must be dismissed insofar as asserted against the Housing Authority (see, Public Housing Law § 157; General Municipal Law § 50-e).

In light of our determination, the appellant’s remaining contention need not be considered. Thompson, J. P., Joy, Mc-Ginity and Feuerstein, 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, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), dated May 1, 1998, as denied its cross motion, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the description of the accident location in her notice of claim was insufficient to allow the defendant New York City Housing Authority (hereinafter the Housing Authority) to conduct a proper investigation (see, De Los Santos v New York City Hous. Auth., 214 AD2d 532). Since the notice of claim was deficient, the complaint must be dismissed insofar as asserted against the Housing Authority (see, Public Housing Law § 157; General Municipal Law § 50-e).

In light of our determination, the appellant’s remaining contention need not be considered. Thompson, J. P., Joy, Mc-Ginity and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 A.D.2d 356, 698 N.Y.S.2d 154, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11492, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lee-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack