Taylor v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Taylor v. New York City Housing Authority

40 A.D.3d 481, 836 N.Y.S.2d 189

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

DecidedMay 24, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 40 A.D.3d 481 (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, 40 A.D.3d 481, 836 N.Y.S.2d 189 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lucy Billings, J.), entered August 29, 2005, which granted plaintiffs motion to amend his notice of claim and complaint, and denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment on the ground of defective notice of claim, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied and the cross motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendant dismissing the complaint.

Defendant was unable to conduct a timely investigation because the notice of claim incorrectly identified the accident site. Plaintiff asserted that the influence of pain medication he was taking as a result of the injury caused him initially to misidentify the location of the accident, but he never did provide any medical evidence to support this excuse, nor any explanation as to why he perpetuated the mistake in his testimony at his General Municipal Law § 50-h hearing and his deposition. Such circumstances warranted denial of the motion to amend and dismissal of the complaint (see e.g. Rodriguez v City of New York, 38 AD3d 268 [2007]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P, Marlow, Gonzalez, Catterson and Kavanagh, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lucy Billings, J.), entered August 29, 2005, which granted plaintiffs motion to amend his notice of claim and complaint, and denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment on the ground of defective notice of claim, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied and the cross motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendant dismissing the complaint.

Defendant was unable to conduct a timely investigation because the notice of claim incorrectly identified the accident site. Plaintiff asserted that the influence of pain medication he was taking as a result of the injury caused him initially to misidentify the location of the accident, but he never did provide any medical evidence to support this excuse, nor any explanation as to why he perpetuated the mistake in his testimony at his General Municipal Law § 50-h hearing and his deposition. Such circumstances warranted denial of the motion to amend and dismissal of the complaint (see e.g. Rodriguez v City of New York, 38 AD3d 268 [2007]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P, Marlow, Gonzalez, Catterson and Kavanagh, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A.D.3d 481, 836 N.Y.S.2d 189, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack