Taylor v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Taylor v. New York City Housing Authority

234 A.D.2d 52, 650 N.Y.S.2d 561, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12289

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 5, 1996·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered November 2, [53]*531995, which denied plaintiffs motion for a deposition of defendant and granted defendant's cross motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff in this personal injury action properly served timely notice of his claim but, when served by defendant with a demand for hearing under General Municipal Law § 50-h, failed to appear on at least nine occasions, without explanation. Plaintiff then filed his first personal injury complaint, which was dismissed on default.

The IAS Court properly dismissed plaintiffs second complaint where his egregious neglect in failing to appear for the section 50-h hearing, as well as his default in filing an answer to defendant's cross motion, resulted in the dismissal of the first complaint for failure to prosecute the action (see, Carven Assocs. v American Home Assur. Corp., 84 NY2d 927). Concur— Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered November 2, [53]*531995, which denied plaintiffs motion for a deposition of defendant and granted defendant's cross motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff in this personal injury action properly served timely notice of his claim but, when served by defendant with a demand for hearing under General Municipal Law § 50-h, failed to appear on at least nine occasions, without explanation. Plaintiff then filed his first personal injury complaint, which was dismissed on default.

The IAS Court properly dismissed plaintiffs second complaint where his egregious neglect in failing to appear for the section 50-h hearing, as well as his default in filing an answer to defendant's cross motion, resulted in the dismissal of the first complaint for failure to prosecute the action (see, Carven Assocs. v American Home Assur. Corp., 84 NY2d 927). Concur— Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

Taylor v. New York City Housing Authority, 234 A.D.2d 52, 650 N.Y.S.2d 561, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12289 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

234 A.D.2d 52 (Taylor v. New York City Housing Authority) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related