So it was frequently held, before the authoritative interpretation that the one year limitation was an absolute bar, that the disability of infancy extended beyond the year ( Matter of Hector v. City of New York, 193 Misc. 727; Feldman v. City of New York, 192 Misc. 136; Weber v. State of New York, 181 Misc. 44, and many others). It was further held that if the notice was defective it could, in the case of an infant, be corrected after the year because the infant was not chargeable with mistakes made on his behalf ( Briggs v. Village of Peekskill, 16 N.Y.S.2d 873; Belardinelli v. New York City Housing Auth., 187 Misc. 920). This history of the interpretation of the statute shows that the original idea was that infancy was a bar so long as the infant would not know how to protect his rights.
Since section 50-e, by its express language, is limited to claims against a public corporation, if the New York City Housing Authority is a public corporation within the meaning of that section, then it is clear that section 50-e has superseded section 157 and is controlling with respect to the time for serving tort claims against the New York City Housing Authority. Such question has not been passed upon by any appellate court and the decisions of the courts at Special Term are in conflict. (See Matter of Genise v. New York City Housing Authority, N. Y. L. J., Nov. 20, 1951, p. 1312, col. 7, NOVA, J.; Belardinelli v. New York City Housing Authority, 187 Misc. 920; Kaufman v. New York City Housing Authority, 188 Misc. 877, affd. on other grounds 272 App. Div. 829, wherein the Appellate Division expressly left open the question as to whether section 50-e applies to claims against the New York City Housing Authority.) This court finds that the powers and duties of the New York City Housing Authority come fairly within the legislative definition of a public benefit corporation and therefore is a public corporation.
Such question has not been passed upon by any appellate court and the decisions of the courts at Special Term are in conflict. (See Matter of Genise v. New York City Housing Authority, N YL.J., Nov. 20, 1951, p. 1312, col. 7, NOVA, J.; Belardinelli v. New York City Housing Authority, 187 Misc. 920; Kaufman v. New York City Housing Authority, 188 Misc. 877, affd. on other grounds 272 A.D. 829, wherein the Appellate Division expressly left open the question as to whether section 50-e applies to claims against the New York City Housing Authority.) This court finds that the powers and duties of the New York City Housing Authority come fairly within the legislative definition of a public benefit corporation and therefore is a public corporation.
) The plaintiff cites Belardinelli v. New York City Housing Authority ( 187 Misc. 920) in which an amendment was permitted. In that case infants were seeking to recover for injuries and adults were suing for loss of services and expenses.