Alvarez v. New York City Housing Authority

• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Writing for the Court: Before MILONAS
• Citation: Alvarez v. New York City Housing Authority, 579 N.Y.S.2d 395, 180 A.D.2d 490 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
• Decision Date: 11 February 1992
• Parties: Nestor ALVAREZ, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, Defendant-Appellant.

Page 395

579 N.Y.S.2d 395

180 A.D.2d 490

Nestor ALVAREZ, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, Defendant-Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division First Department.

Feb. 11, 1992.

Before MILONAS, J.P., and WALLACH, ROSS, ASCH and SMITH, JJ.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Myriam J. Altman, J.), entered December 6, 1990, which granted plaintiff's motion to dismiss defendant's fourth affirmative defense, and denied defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

There is no merit to the fourth affirmative defense that the action is barred for failure to set forth the nature and location of the accident with sufficient specificity in the notice of claim. The information provided in the notice of claim "was adequate to enable the defendant to locate the defect and investigate the claim" (Basile v. City of New York, 156 A.D.2d 239, 240, 548 N.Y.S.2d 499, quoting Bravo v. City of New York, 122 A.D.2d 761, 505 N.Y.S.2d 647), describing, as it did, a relatively small area as the location of the accident and supplemented, as it was, by more detailed information at the statutory hearing conducted within four months of the accident (compare, Mitchell v. City of New York, 131 A.D.2d 313, 516 N.Y.S.2d 458 [location described...