SAULO OTERO, RESPONDENT, v. THE NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, APPELLANT.
94 N.Y.2d 800 (1999).
November 18, 1999
1 No. 168
(99 NY Int. 0151)
Decided November 18, 1999
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
_________________________________________________________________
Cynthia Holfester, for appellant.
Mark R. Bower, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs,
and the certified question should be answered in the affirmative.
Plaintiff filed a summons and complaint in 1994. An index number
previously secured and paid for by plaintiff with respect to his
late-notice-of-claim application, was assigned to the action. In 1997,
at the request of the County Clerk, plaintiff purchased a second index
number, which was then re-assigned to the action.
Defendant moved to dismiss the action on the ground that plaintiff
"never filed the summons and complaint pursuant to CPLR 304."
Supreme Court denied the motion and the Appellate Division affirmed
without opinion. It then granted leave to appeal.
Under the unique and opaque factual circumstances of this case, the
fiscal underpinnings of the commencement-by-filing system do not
support turning plaintiff out of his day in court.
Order affirmed, with costs, and certified question answered in the
affirmative, in a memorandum. Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Bellacosa,
Smith, Levine, Ciparick, Wesley and Rosenblatt concur.
Decided November 18, 1999
SNIPPETS:
THE NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, APPELLANT.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
Mark R. Bower, for respondent.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified
Plaintiff filed a summons and complaint in 1994.
An index number previously secured and paid for by plaintiff with respect to his
In 1997, at the request of the County Clerk, plaintiff purchased a second index number, which
Defendant moved to dismiss the action on the ground that plaintiff "never filed the summons
Supreme Court denied the motion and the Appellate Division affirmed without opinion.
Under the unique and opaque factual circumstances of this case, the fiscal underpinnings of
Order affirmed, with costs, and certified question answered in the affirmative, in a
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick, Wesley and Rosenblatt concur.
|
