Rentas v. New York City Housing Authority

36 Misc. 2d 301, 232 N.Y.S.2d 643, 1962 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2500
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 9, 1962
StatusPublished

This text of 36 Misc. 2d 301 (Rentas v. New York City Housing Authority) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Rentas v. New York City Housing Authority, 36 Misc. 2d 301, 232 N.Y.S.2d 643, 1962 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2500 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1962).

Opinion

Louis B. Heller, J.

This application is made under section 50-e of the General Municipal Law for leave to serve a late notice of claim, as proposed, in behalf of the infant herein.

The action is to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained by the 15-year-old claimant when he fell from a second-story window at premises 96 Clymer Street, Brooklyn, New York, concededly a vacant building.

The motion is denied, more than one year having elapsed since the happening of the accident on August 21, 1961. Wise or unwise, fair or harsh, that law (§ 50-e, supra) is as binding on the courts as it is on this petitioner and on everyone else (Martin [302]*302v. School Bd., 301 N. Y. 233, 239, affg. 275 App. Div. 1042 [2d Dept.]; Matter of Brown v. Board of Trustees, 303 N. Y. 484).

The contention of movant’s attorney that The City of New York received the Notice of Claim herein which it acknowledged on November 6, 1961, and did not, in any manner, ever advise this office that it was not the actual owner of the premises ” (emphasis supplied) is contradicted by the prior statement appearing on the same page of the attorney’s affidavit which advises the court that “ On a review of this file, I discovered that the City of New York claimed that the actual owner of the premises at the time of this accident was the New York City Housing Authority ” (emphasis supplied).

The claimed inadvertence as here described clearly is not that type of disability set forth in the statute (Matter of Goglas v. New York City Housing Auth., 11 N Y 2d 680, affd. 13 A D 2d 939; Matter of Abiuso v. New York City Tr. Auth., 4 A D 2d 876). The case cited by movant has been examined by the court and found not to be pertinent with the facts here described.

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

Related

Martin v. School Board of Union Free District No. 28
93 N.E.2d 655 (New York Court of Appeals, 1950)
Brown v. Board of Trustees
104 N.E.2d 866 (New York Court of Appeals, 1952)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
36 Misc. 2d 301, 232 N.Y.S.2d 643, 1962 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2500, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rentas-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nysupct-1962.