From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Moore v. New York City Housing Auth

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 13, 1970
35 A.D.2d 553 (N.Y. App. Div. 1970)

Summary

In Matter of Moore v. New York City Housing Auth. (35 A.D.2d 553), the court, citing Teresta (supra) stated "the lack of verification may in a proper case be excused" but in the same breath refused to excuse the failure to serve a notice of claim in the manner and method prescribed by statute.

Summary of this case from Braslow v. Barnett

Opinion

July 13, 1970


In a proceeding pursuant to section 50-e Gen. Mun. of the General Municipal Law for leave to serve a notice of claim, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated June 13, 1969, which granted the application. Order reversed, without costs, on the law, and application denied. The findings of fact below are affirmed. We accept the finding of fact made below that the petitioner, three days after the accident, gave information to an employee of appellant, the New York City Housing Authority, at a local office in Brooklyn. We agree that the report given contained all the essential information required in a notice of claim. The report was written in hand by the employee of the Housing Authority and signed by petitioner. The defects of the document as a notice of claim were that (1) it was not verified; (2) it was not served upon the person designated by law in the manner and method prescribed; and (3) it was a report of an accident and not a notice of claim. The Housing Authority took no action on the report that could have misled or prejudiced petitioner. The fact is that the Housing Authority did nothing in relation to petitioner, though it investigated. Petitioner served a notice of claim on the City of New York in the mistaken belief it was the owner of the building. On learning of his mistake some five months after the accident, he sought leave to serve a notice of claim against the Housing Authority nunc pro tunc. We are of the opinion that the Special Term erred in treating the accident report as a notice of claim. While the lack of verification may in a proper case be excused (General Municipal Law, § 50-e, subd. 6; Teresta v. City of New York, 304 N.Y. 440; McCullough v. Board of Educ. of Ramapo Cent. School Dist. No. 2, 11 A.D.2d 740), the failure to serve a notice of claim in the manner and method prescribed by statute upon the person designated by law is a fatal defect (Public Housing Law, § 157, subd. 2; CPLR 312; Matter of Miller v. New York City Housing Auth., 7 A.D.2d 922, affd. 6 N.Y.2d 932; Matter of Goglas v. New York City Housing Auth., 13 A.D.2d 939, affd. 11 N.Y.2d 680). Hopkins, Acting P.J., Martuscello, Latham and Brennan, JJ., concur; Benjamin, J., dissents and votes to affirm the order.


Summaries of

Matter of Moore v. New York City Housing Auth

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 13, 1970
35 A.D.2d 553 (N.Y. App. Div. 1970)

In Matter of Moore v. New York City Housing Auth. (35 A.D.2d 553), the court, citing Teresta (supra) stated "the lack of verification may in a proper case be excused" but in the same breath refused to excuse the failure to serve a notice of claim in the manner and method prescribed by statute.

Summary of this case from Braslow v. Barnett
Case details for

Matter of Moore v. New York City Housing Auth

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of PARKER MOORE, Respondent, v. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING…

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

Date published: Jul 13, 1970

Citations

35 A.D.2d 553 (N.Y. App. Div. 1970)

Citing Cases

Braslow v. Barnett

Plaintiffs have pointed to the "landmark" decision of Teresta v. City of New York ( 304 N.Y. 440) wherein it…

MEGRANT PROPS. v. Port Auth.

The consent of the Authority to be sued is conditioned on a notice of claim being served "by or on behalf of…