Velez v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Velez v. New York City Housing Authority

39 A.D.3d 229, 831 N.Y.S.2d 704

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

DecidedApril 3, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 39 A.D.3d 229 (Velez 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

Velez v. New York City Housing Authority, 39 A.D.3d 229, 831 N.Y.S.2d 704 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J), entered July 28, 2006, which denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint and granted plaintiffs cross motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted and the cross motion denied. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendants dismissing the complaint.

Plaintiff failed to file the motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim within the applicable period of limitations. The action is thus time-barred (see Kellogg v Office of Chief Med. Examiner of City of N.Y., 24 AD3d 376 [2005]; Hall v City of New York, 1 AD3d 254 [2003]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find [230]*230them without merit. Concur—Andrias, J.P, Friedman, Marlow, Williams and Catterson, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J), entered July 28, 2006, which denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint and granted plaintiffs cross motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted and the cross motion denied. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendants dismissing the complaint.

Plaintiff failed to file the motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim within the applicable period of limitations. The action is thus time-barred (see Kellogg v Office of Chief Med. Examiner of City of N.Y., 24 AD3d 376 [2005]; Hall v City of New York, 1 AD3d 254 [2003]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find [230]*230them without merit. Concur—Andrias, J.P, Friedman, Marlow, Williams and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 A.D.3d 229, 831 N.Y.S.2d 704, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/velez-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack