S.J. Fuel Co. v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

S.J. Fuel Co. v. New York City Housing Authority

73 A.D.3d 413, 899 N.Y.S.2d 603

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

DecidedMay 4, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 73 A.D.3d 413 (S.J. Fuel Co. 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

S.J. Fuel Co. v. New York City Housing Authority, 73 A.D.3d 413, 899 N.Y.S.2d 603 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Bernard J. Fried, J.), entered March 24, 2009, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, neither prior dealings among the parties nor actual knowledge by defendant of [414]*414plaintiffs claims and alleged damages relieved plaintiff of the obligation to serve a timely and sufficiently detailed notice of claim (Promo-Pro Ltd. v Lehrer McGovern Bovis, 306 AD2d 221 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 628 [2003]). Nor did defendant’s alleged breach of the contract estop it from relying on plaintiffs failure to comply with the notice of claim provisions, since the breach, even if it occurred, did not prevent plaintiff from complying with those provisions (A.H.A. Gen. Constr. v New York City Hous. Auth., 92 NY2d 20 [1998]). In light of the foregoing, we do not reach the statute of limitations issue. Concur— Gonzalez, P.J., Tom, Renwick, DeGrasse and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Bernard J. Fried, J.), entered March 24, 2009, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, neither prior dealings among the parties nor actual knowledge by defendant of [414]*414plaintiffs claims and alleged damages relieved plaintiff of the obligation to serve a timely and sufficiently detailed notice of claim (Promo-Pro Ltd. v Lehrer McGovern Bovis, 306 AD2d 221 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 628 [2003]). Nor did defendant’s alleged breach of the contract estop it from relying on plaintiffs failure to comply with the notice of claim provisions, since the breach, even if it occurred, did not prevent plaintiff from complying with those provisions (A.H.A. Gen. Constr. v New York City Hous. Auth., 92 NY2d 20 [1998]). In light of the foregoing, we do not reach the statute of limitations issue. Concur— Gonzalez, P.J., Tom, Renwick, DeGrasse and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 A.D.3d 413, 899 N.Y.S.2d 603, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sj-fuel-co-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack