Smith v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Smith v. New York City Housing Authority

137 A.D.3d 714, 27 N.Y.S.3d 384

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

DecidedMarch 31, 2016

Docket689 401019/12

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 137 A.D.3d 714 (Smith 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

Smith v. New York City Housing Authority, 137 A.D.3d 714, 27 N.Y.S.3d 384 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lucy Billings, J.), entered March 2, 2015, which denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Pro se plaintiff seeks summary judgment on her claims that were previously dismissed by Supreme Court in December 2013 (the dismissal order). Having failed to appeal from the dismissal order, plaintiff cannot now attack it (see Dick v City of New York, 11 AD3d 239 [1st Dept 2004]). Furthermore, although plaintiff’s claim arising under 12 USC 1701u (c) (1) was dismissed on a conditional basis only, since she failed to comply with the dismissal order’s plain terms, plaintiff’s sole remedy was to timely appeal from the dismissal order, which she failed to do (id.).

Concur—Tom, J.P., Sweeny, ManzanetDaniels, Gische and Gesmer, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lucy Billings, J.), entered March 2, 2015, which denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Pro se plaintiff seeks summary judgment on her claims that were previously dismissed by Supreme Court in December 2013 (the dismissal order). Having failed to appeal from the dismissal order, plaintiff cannot now attack it (see Dick v City of New York, 11 AD3d 239 [1st Dept 2004]). Furthermore, although plaintiff’s claim arising under 12 USC 1701u (c) (1) was dismissed on a conditional basis only, since she failed to comply with the dismissal order’s plain terms, plaintiff’s sole remedy was to timely appeal from the dismissal order, which she failed to do (id.).

Concur—Tom, J.P., Sweeny, ManzanetDaniels, Gische and Gesmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

137 A.D.3d 714, 27 N.Y.S.3d 384, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack