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

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

DecidedDecember 5, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 234 A.D.2d 52 (Taylor 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

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

234 A.D.2d 52, 650 N.Y.S.2d 561, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12289, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack