Irizarry v. New York City Housing Authority
| Decision Date | 19 November 1990 |
| Citation | 167 A.D.2d 466,561 N.Y.S.2d 928 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Samuel IRIZARRY, Respondent, v. The NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Morris & Duffy (Kevin J. O'Neill, New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
Sullivan & Liapakis, P.C. (Pamela Anagnos Liapakis and Stephen C. Glasser, New York City, of counsel), for respondent.
Before MANGANO, P.J., and BRACKEN, LAWRENCE and KUNZEMAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a proceeding pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e(5) for leave to file a late notice of claim, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Golden, J.), dated May 9, 1989, which granted the application.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
In granting the petitioner's application for leave to serve a late notice of claim, the Supreme Court did not exercise its discretion in an abusive or improvident manner. Considering all of the circumstances revealed in the affidavits submitted to the court, including the fact that the New York City Housing Authority had actual notice of the occurrence upon which the petitioner's claim is based, and was not prejudiced by the delay, we see no reason to substitute our discretion for that of the Supreme Court (see generally, Matter of Ziecker v. Town of Orchard Park, 70 A.D.2d 422, 421 N.Y.S.2d 447, aff'd 51 N.Y.2d 957, 435 N.Y.S.2d 720, 416 N.E.2d 1055; Rice v. New York City Hous. Auth., 149 A.D.2d 495, 539 N.Y.S.2d 977; Wolf v. State of New York, 140 A.D.2d 692, 529 N.Y.S.2d 22; Whitehead v. Centerville Fire Dist., 90 A.D.2d 655, 456 N.Y.S.2d 450; cf., Gagliardi v. New York City Hous. Auth., 88 A.D.2d 610, 450 N.Y.S.2d 48).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Resto v. City of New York
...of prejudice, there is "no reason to substitute our discretion for that of the Supreme Court" (Matter of Irizarry v. New York City Hous. Auth., 167 A.D.2d 466, 467, 561 N.Y.S.2d 928; see, Matter of Jones v. New York City Hous. Auth., 198 A.D.2d 211, 604 N.Y.S.2d 789). The majority further s......
-
Jones v. New York City Housing Authority
...time that a notice of claim was required to have been served, and was not prejudiced by the delay (see, Matter of Irizarry v. New York City Hous. Auth., 167 A.D.2d 466, 561 N.Y.S.2d 928). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in granting leave to file a late notic......
-
Grant v. City of New York
...without costs or disbursements, for reasons stated by Justice Aronin at the Supreme Court (see also, Matter of Irizarry v. New York City Housing Authority, 167 A.D.2d 466, 561 N.Y.S.2d 928). THOMPSON, J.P., and LAWRENCE, HARWOOD and O'BRIEN, JJ., ...