Sellars v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sellars v. New York City Housing Authority

173 A.D.2d 691, 571 N.Y.S.2d 1009, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8196

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

DecidedMay 28, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 173 A.D.2d 691 (Sellars 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

Sellars v. New York City Housing Authority, 173 A.D.2d 691, 571 N.Y.S.2d 1009, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8196 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Katz, J.), dated April 11, 1989, which denied his motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, we find that the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying his motion for leave to file a late notice of claim (see, General Municipal Law § 50-e). The plaintiff offered no excuse for his failure to file a timely notice of claim, or for his 14-month delay in making the instant application (see, Perry v City of New York, 133 AD2d 692; Matter of Heather v County of Rensselaer, 88 AD2d 718; Rodriguez v City of New York, 86 AD2d 533). Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Lawrence and Eiber, 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 plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Katz, J.), dated April 11, 1989, which denied his motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, we find that the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying his motion for leave to file a late notice of claim (see, General Municipal Law § 50-e). The plaintiff offered no excuse for his failure to file a timely notice of claim, or for his 14-month delay in making the instant application (see, Perry v City of New York, 133 AD2d 692; Matter of Heather v County of Rensselaer, 88 AD2d 718; Rodriguez v City of New York, 86 AD2d 533). Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

173 A.D.2d 691, 571 N.Y.S.2d 1009, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8196, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sellars-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack