Matter of Carpenter v. New York City Hous. Auth.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Carpenter v. New York City Hous. Auth.

2017 NY Slip Op 541, 146 A.D.3d 674, 44 N.Y.S.3d 906

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

DecidedJanuary 26, 2017

Docket2864 154622/14

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 541 (Matter of Carpenter v. New York City Hous. Auth.) 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

Matter of Carpenter v. New York City Hous. Auth., 2017 NY Slip Op 541, 146 A.D.3d 674, 44 N.Y.S.3d 906 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lynn R. Kotler, J.), entered July 8, 2015, which granted defendants-respondents’ motions to dismiss the complaint against the New York Police Department (NYPD), “Human Resources” and the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly dismissed the complaint against NYCHA for plaintiff’s failure to file a timely notice of claim or to seek leave to file a late notice of claim within the applicable one-year-and-90-day limitation period (see Public Housing Law § 157 [2]; General Municipal Law §§ 50-e [1]; 50-i [1] [c]; Davidson v Bronx Mun. Hosp., 64 NY2d 59, 61-62 [1984]; Pierson v City of New York, 56 NY2d 950, 955-956 [1982]; Fornabaio v City of New York, 41 AD3d 125 [1st Dept 2007]). The court also properly dismissed the complaint against NYPD and “Human Resources,” as agencies of the City are not amenable to being sued (see New York City Charter, ch 17, § 396), and plaintiff has failed to state facts sufficient to raise a cognizable cause of action.

Concur — Acosta, J.P., Mazzarelli, Feinman and Webber, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lynn R. Kotler, J.), entered July 8, 2015, which granted defendants-respondents’ motions to dismiss the complaint against the New York Police Department (NYPD), “Human Resources” and the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly dismissed the complaint against NYCHA for plaintiff’s failure to file a timely notice of claim or to seek leave to file a late notice of claim within the applicable one-year-and-90-day limitation period (see Public Housing Law § 157 [2]; General Municipal Law §§ 50-e [1]; 50-i [1] [c]; Davidson v Bronx Mun. Hosp., 64 NY2d 59, 61-62 [1984]; Pierson v City of New York, 56 NY2d 950, 955-956 [1982]; Fornabaio v City of New York, 41 AD3d 125 [1st Dept 2007]). The court also properly dismissed the complaint against NYPD and “Human Resources,” as agencies of the City are not amenable to being sued (see New York City Charter, ch 17, § 396), and plaintiff has failed to state facts sufficient to raise a cognizable cause of action.

Concur — Acosta, J.P., Mazzarelli, Feinman and Webber, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 541, 146 A.D.3d 674, 44 N.Y.S.3d 906, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-carpenter-v-new-york-city-hous-auth-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack