From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wilson v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 5, 1992
187 A.D.2d 260 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

November 5, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.).


Plaintiff is a resident of a New York City Housing Authority building known as 353-355 E. 141st Street, Bronx County. There are two entrances, 100 feet apart, on opposite sides of that building, separately designated as 353 and 355. Plaintiff alleges that on October 4, 1985, she broke her arm when she tripped on a hole in the sidewalk outside the entrance to 355.

An accident report prepared by the Housing Authority four days after the incident, based upon information provided by the plaintiff, designated the site of the accident as outside the entrance to 353. An agent of the Authority investigated and found no defect there. The same site was erroneously designated as the location of the injury in the notice of claim filed on January 2, 1986, and the complaint filed on March 21, 1986. Four and a half years later, during a deposition, the plaintiff for the first time identified the actual location of her accident as being outside the entrance to 355.

General Municipal Law § 50-e (2) provides, in pertinent part, that notice be given of "the time when, the place where and the manner in which the claim arose". This requirement is set forth so that the municipality may have adequate opportunity to timely investigate and defend (Levine v City of New York, 111 A.D.2d 785; Caselli v City of New York, 105 A.D.2d 251). Although the plaintiff submitted an affidavit that she has always referred to her building interchangeably as 353 or 355, and it thus appears that the error was inadvertent, the misidentification rendered the notice inadequate because the defendant did not become apprised of the correct location of the accident until four and a half years after the event, and was thereby substantially prejudiced in its ability to investigate and defend (Konsker v City of New York, 172 A.D.2d 361, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 858; Merino v New York City Tr. Auth., 184 A.D.2d 441). The passage of several years is particularly prejudicial with regard to alleged sidewalk defects since these are often transitory in nature (Levine v City of New York, 111 A.D.2d, supra, at 786). We accordingly find that the court's denial of defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint constituted an improvident exercise of discretion (Mitchell v City of New York, 131 A.D.2d 313).

Concur — Carro, J.P., Wallach, Ross and Asch, JJ.


Summaries of

Wilson v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 5, 1992
187 A.D.2d 260 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

Wilson v. New York City Housing Authority

Case Details

Full title:LINETTE WILSON, Respondent, v. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Nov 5, 1992

Citations

187 A.D.2d 260 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
589 N.Y.S.2d 425

Citing Cases

Atwater v. County of Suffolk

. It was not until the deposition on of the witnesses on behalf of the County and PM on November 4, 2005 that…

Wilson v. New York City Hous. Auth

Decided February 11, 1993 Appeal from (1st Dept: 187 A.D.2d 260) MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL GRANTED OR…