Stanley v. City of New York Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stanley v. City of New York Housing Authority

257 A.D.2d 497, 684 N.Y.S.2d 522, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 416

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 21, 1999·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Friedman, J.), entered October 21, 1997, which, insofar as appealed from, granted the infant petitioner’s application to serve a late notice of claim for personal injuries allegedly caused by exposure to lead paint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although not served with petitioner’s notice of claim until four and a half years after the infant petitioner was diagnosed with lead poisoning, respondent acquired knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within a month of the diagnosis, when it received the Department of Health’s nuisance abatement stating that petitioner’s health was in danger due to high levels of lead paint in the apartment. Inasmuch as respondent tested the apartment for lead almost immediately upon receipt of the abatement order, as it did twice again over the next three years, no prejudice was caused by the delay. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Tom and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Friedman, J.), entered October 21, 1997, which, insofar as appealed from, granted the infant petitioner’s application to serve a late notice of claim for personal injuries allegedly caused by exposure to lead paint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although not served with petitioner’s notice of claim until four and a half years after the infant petitioner was diagnosed with lead poisoning, respondent acquired knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within a month of the diagnosis, when it received the Department of Health’s nuisance abatement stating that petitioner’s health was in danger due to high levels of lead paint in the apartment. Inasmuch as respondent tested the apartment for lead almost immediately upon receipt of the abatement order, as it did twice again over the next three years, no prejudice was caused by the delay. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Tom and Saxe, JJ.

Stanley v. City of New York Housing Authority, 257 A.D.2d 497, 684 N.Y.S.2d 522, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 416 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

257 A.D.2d 497 (Stanley v. City of New York Housing Authority) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related