Watson v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Watson v. New York City Housing Authority

294 A.D.2d 236, 741 N.Y.S.2d 864, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5425

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

DecidedMay 23, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 294 A.D.2d 236 (Watson 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

Watson v. New York City Housing Authority, 294 A.D.2d 236, 741 N.Y.S.2d 864, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5425 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), entered on or about February 22, 2001, which denied plaintiffs motion to restore her action to the calendar pursuant to CPLR 3404, and granted defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the action pursuant to CPLR 3404 and General Municipal Law § 50-h, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted, the cross motion denied, and the complaint reinstated.

Because no note of issue has been filed in this action, CPLR 3404 is not applicable, and the action cannot be deemed dismissed pursuant to that statute (see, Johnson v Minskoff & Sons, 287 AD2d 233). Neither does plaintiffs failure to submit to a physical examination as required by General Municipal Law § 50-h afford a basis for dismissal, since defendant took no steps to set a particular date on which to conduct such an ex-[237]*237animation (see, Ramos v New York City Hous. Auth., 256 AD2d 195; Ruiz v New York City Hous. Auth., 216 AD2d 258). While dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3126 may have been warranted based on plaintiffs alleged failure to provide other required disclosure, the cross motion granted by the IAS court did not invoke that statute. Concur—Williams, P.J., Nardelli, Tom, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), entered on or about February 22, 2001, which denied plaintiffs motion to restore her action to the calendar pursuant to CPLR 3404, and granted defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the action pursuant to CPLR 3404 and General Municipal Law § 50-h, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted, the cross motion denied, and the complaint reinstated.

Because no note of issue has been filed in this action, CPLR 3404 is not applicable, and the action cannot be deemed dismissed pursuant to that statute (see, Johnson v Minskoff & Sons, 287 AD2d 233). Neither does plaintiffs failure to submit to a physical examination as required by General Municipal Law § 50-h afford a basis for dismissal, since defendant took no steps to set a particular date on which to conduct such an ex-[237]*237animation (see, Ramos v New York City Hous. Auth., 256 AD2d 195; Ruiz v New York City Hous. Auth., 216 AD2d 258). While dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3126 may have been warranted based on plaintiffs alleged failure to provide other required disclosure, the cross motion granted by the IAS court did not invoke that statute. Concur—Williams, P.J., Nardelli, Tom, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

294 A.D.2d 236, 741 N.Y.S.2d 864, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5425, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/watson-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack