Torres v. New York City Housing Authority
| Decision Date | 20 May 1999 |
| Parties | EDWIN TORRES, Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Plaintiff alleged injuries resulting from a slip and fall occurring on December 20, 1995, on property owned by the Housing Authority. On December 28, 1995 he reported the incident to a Housing Authority employee, who prepared an accident report. The accident report indicated that the fall occurred as a result of accumulated snow and ice at the entrance to the courtyard of the Chelsea Houses, between 420 and 428 West 26th Street. The March 15, 1996 notice of claim indicated that the accident occurred as a result of accumulated snow and ice at 427 West 26th Street. The Housing Authority's April 2, 1996 response rejecting the notice of claim, to which plaintiff failed to respond, relied on the vagueness of the notice. The Housing Authority did not request a General Municipal Law § 50-h hearing, although codefendant City of New York participated in its General Municipal Law § 50-h hearing on August 23, 1996. At that hearing, plaintiff specified that the accident occurred at the side of the Housing Authority's office at 428 West 26th Street, in the courtyard, that it was caused by a snowcovered hole, and that plaintiff had taken photographs two days after the accident.
Plaintiff's March 20, 1997 summons and complaint filed and served on the Housing Authority identified 427 West 26th Street as the location of the accident, but now alleged, inconsistently with the notice of claim, that it was caused by a crack in the sidewalk. The Housing Authority's June 12, 1997 answer included as an affirmative defense plaintiff's procedural failures in regard to commencement of the action, including those under General Municipal Law article 4. On July 18, 1997, plaintiff, conceding defects in specification of the accident location, sought leave to amend the notice of claim and the complaint, arguing that actual notice had been given to the Housing Authority employee who wrote up the accident report. The proposed amended notice of claim and complaint alleged that the accident had occurred at 428 West 26th Street, and was caused by an uneven portion of a concrete border surrounding a tree in the courtyard. However, the photographs attached to the motion rather than being contemporaneous with the December 1995 accident, appear to have been taken in June and July of 1997. Defendant cross-moved to dismiss on September 5, 1997, alleging that the inadequacies in the original notice and inconsistencies between the accident report and the proposed amended notice and the complaint deprived the Housing Authority of an opportunity to timely investigate the accident.
The motion court, finding prejudice to the Housing Authority to be minimal, and basically equating the City's General Municipal Law § 50-h hearing with having provided the Housing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Delgado v. City of N.Y.
...have abandoned all claims against the City, which is not the same entity as NYCHA (see Torres v. New York City Hous. Auth., 261 A.D.2d 273, 275, 690 N.Y.S.2d 257 [1st Dept.1999], lv. denied 93 N.Y.2d 816, 697 N.Y.S.2d 563, 719 N.E.2d 924 [1999]), since they have not addressed those claims o......
-
Bhatnagar v. City of N.Y.
...omission of or mistake in the injury location is too fundamental to fall within GML § 5-e(6)'s purview, citing Torres v. New York City Hous. Auth., 261 A.D.2d 273 (1st Dep't 1999). Neither this authority nor GML § 50-e(6), however, so limits the statute's scope. A mistake in the injury loca......
-
France v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth.
...). It is well settled that NYCHA is a "distinct municipal entity not united in interest with [the] City" (Torres v. New York City Hous. Auth., 261 A.D.2d 273, 275 [1st Dept. 1999] ). It is independent of the City of New York (see Roberts v. New York City Office of Collective Bargaining, 33 ......
-
Bhatnagar v. City of N.Y.
...contend that an omission of or mistake in the injury location is too fundamental to fall within GML § 5–e(6)'s purview, citing Torres v. New York City Hous. Auth., 261 A.D.2d 273, 690 N.Y.S.2d 257 (1st Dep't 1999). Neither this authority nor GML § 50–e(6), however, so limits the statute's s......