Rakhlev v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rakhlev v. New York City Housing Authority

253 A.D.2d 526, 676 N.Y.S.2d 877, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9104

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

DecidedAugust 24, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 253 A.D.2d 526 (Rakhlev 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

Rakhlev v. New York City Housing Authority, 253 A.D.2d 526, 676 N.Y.S.2d 877, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9104 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding for leave to serve a late notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5), the New York City Housing Authority appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (G. Aronin, J.), dated June 4, 1997, which granted the application, and (2) an order of the same court, dated October 30, 1997, which denied the appellant’s motion to resettle the recital paragraph of the order dated June 4, 1997, to reflect that it submitted papers in opposition to the petitioners’ application.

[527]*527Ordered that the order dated October 30, 1997, is reversed, on the law, and the motion to resettle the order dated June 4, 1997, is granted; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated June 4, 1997, is resettled by adding to the first paragraph thereof, after the words “dated January 7, 1997,” the following language: “and the affirmation of Jeoungson Kim, dated January 28, 1997, and any exhibits submitted in connection therewith, in opposition to the application”; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated June 4, 1997, as so resettled, is reversed, as a matter of discretion, the application is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the appellant is awarded one bill of costs.

Approximately nine months after an alleged slip and fall in a building owned and operated by the appellant, New York City Housing Authority, the petitioners commenced this proceeding for leave to serve a late notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5). However, because the petitioners failed to proffer either a reasonable excuse for their delay or proof that the appellant had actual knowledge of the essential facts of their claim within 90 days after its accrual or within a reasonable time thereafter, the court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting such leave (see, Matter of Dickerson v New York City Hous. Auth., 245 AD2d 371; Matter of Finneran v City of New York, 228 AD2d 596; Weber v County of Suffolk, 208 AD2d 527).

The appellant was entitled to resettlement of the recital paragraphs of the order dated June 4, 1997, to reflect the fact that it submitted papers in opposition to the petitioners’ application (see, Matter of Stonchius, 209 AD2d 705; CPLR 2219). Rosenblatt, J. P., Ritter, Copertino and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding for leave to serve a late notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5), the New York City Housing Authority appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (G. Aronin, J.), dated June 4, 1997, which granted the application, and (2) an order of the same court, dated October 30, 1997, which denied the appellant’s motion to resettle the recital paragraph of the order dated June 4, 1997, to reflect that it submitted papers in opposition to the petitioners’ application.

[527]*527Ordered that the order dated October 30, 1997, is reversed, on the law, and the motion to resettle the order dated June 4, 1997, is granted; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated June 4, 1997, is resettled by adding to the first paragraph thereof, after the words “dated January 7, 1997,” the following language: “and the affirmation of Jeoungson Kim, dated January 28, 1997, and any exhibits submitted in connection therewith, in opposition to the application”; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated June 4, 1997, as so resettled, is reversed, as a matter of discretion, the application is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the appellant is awarded one bill of costs.

Approximately nine months after an alleged slip and fall in a building owned and operated by the appellant, New York City Housing Authority, the petitioners commenced this proceeding for leave to serve a late notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5). However, because the petitioners failed to proffer either a reasonable excuse for their delay or proof that the appellant had actual knowledge of the essential facts of their claim within 90 days after its accrual or within a reasonable time thereafter, the court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting such leave (see, Matter of Dickerson v New York City Hous. Auth., 245 AD2d 371; Matter of Finneran v City of New York, 228 AD2d 596; Weber v County of Suffolk, 208 AD2d 527).

The appellant was entitled to resettlement of the recital paragraphs of the order dated June 4, 1997, to reflect the fact that it submitted papers in opposition to the petitioners’ application (see, Matter of Stonchius, 209 AD2d 705; CPLR 2219). Rosenblatt, J. P., Ritter, Copertino and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

253 A.D.2d 526, 676 N.Y.S.2d 877, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9104, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rakhlev-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack