Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: Hortencia MARTINEZ, Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, Respondent.
In a proceeding pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e(5) for leave to serve a late notice of claim, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated February 24, 1997, which denied the application.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the petitioner's application for leave to serve a late notice of claim. Although the petitioner initially served a timely notice of claim on the City of New York, in which she alleged that she fell in the courtyard of the Marcy Housing Project due to “dangerous and defective conditions existing thereat”, she failed to timely serve the proper agency, the respondent New York City Housing Authority (hereinafter the Housing Authority). She did not provide an adequate excuse for her failure to serve the Housing Authority and the notice to the City cannot be imputed to the Housing Authority (see, Seif v. City of New York, 218 A.D.2d 595, 630 N.Y.S.2d 742).
Additionally, the petitioner failed to establish that the Housing Authority timely acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting her claim (see, Matter of DiBella v. City of New York, 234 A.D.2d 366, 650 N.Y.S.2d 311; Matter of Shapiro v. County of Nassau, 208 A.D.2d 545, 616 N.Y.S.2d 786). The petitioner contends that the Housing Authority had sufficient notice of her claim because the police assisted her at the scene of the accident and prepared a report. As a general rule, however, the fact that the police have knowledge of an occurrence cannot be imputed to another municipal agency (see, Russ v. New York City Hous. Auth., 198 A.D.2d 361, 603 N.Y.S.2d 338), and there is no evidence in this record that the police report was disclosed to the Housing Authority. Furthermore, since the petitioner failed to produce a copy of the report, there is no proof in the record that the report would have provided adequate notice of the specific nature of her claim (see, Matter of Shapiro v. County of Nassau, supra).
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: May 11, 1998
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)