Parker v. N.Y. City Hous. Auth.

• Decision Date: 22 February 2011
• Citation: 81 A.D.3d 964,916 N.Y.S.2d 841
• Parties: In the Matter of Denise PARKER, appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, respondent-respondent, et al., respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

916 N.Y.S.2d 841
81 A.D.3d 964

In the Matter of Denise PARKER, appellant,
v.
NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, respondent-respondent, et al., respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Feb. 22, 2011.

Newman, O'Malley & Epstein, LLC (Alexander J. Wulwick, New York, N.Y., of counsel), for appellant.

Cullen and Dykman, LLP, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Joseph Miller of counsel), for respondent-respondent.

81 A.D.3d 964

In a proceeding pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e(5) for leave to serve a late notice of claim, the petitioner appeals,

81 A.D.3d 965

as limited by her brief, from (1) so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kerrigan, J.), dated March 24, 2010, as denied that branch of her petition which was for leave to serve a late notice of claim upon the New York City Housing Authority and dismissed so much of the proceeding as was asserted against the New York City Housing Authority, and (2) so much of an order of the same court entered July 30, 2010, as denied that branch of her motion which was for leave to renew that branch of her petition which was for leave to serve a late notice of claim upon the New York City Housing Authority.

ORDERED that the orders are affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the petition which was for leave to serve a late notice of claim upon the New York City Housing Authority (hereinafter NYCHA). The proposed notice of claim and the petitioner's affidavit did not provide a sufficient description of the location of the accident to allow NYCHA to investigate the allegations contained in the notice of claim ( see General Municipal Law § 50-e[2] ); Atwater v. County of Suffolk, 50 A.D.3d 713, 714-715, 855 N.Y.S.2d 226; Canelos v. City of New York, 37 A.D.3d 637, 638, 830 N.Y.S.2d 334; Perre v. Town of Poughkeepsie, 300 A.D.2d 379, 380, 752 N.Y.S.2d 68). Although this was a sufficient basis upon which to deny the petition ( see Matter of Melissa G. v. North Babylon Union Free School Dist., 50 A.D.3d 901, 902, 855 N.Y.S.2d 276; Perre v. Town of Poughkeepsie, 300 A.D.2d at 380, 752 N.Y.S.2d 68; Matter of Klobnock v. City of New York, 80 A.D.2d 854, 436 N.Y.S.2d 769), the petitioner also failed to demonstrate that there would be no prejudice to NYCHA as a consequence of the delay caused by her failure to serve an adequate and timely notice of claim ( see Matter of Gobardhan v. City of New York, 64 A.D.3d 705, 706, 882...