NEW YORK – A New York trial court said Aug. 2 it would allow a late-filed claim to proceed against the New York City Housing Authority because the authority was aware of tenants’ mold complaints and the medical conditions of minor plaintiffs and would not be prejudiced by the delay. Craddock v. City of New York, et al., No. 19948/04 (N.Y. Sup., Queens Cty.).

Queens County Supreme Court Justice Phyllis Orlikoff Flug did grant a similar motion to dismiss by the City of New York, 'as they neither owned, manage, operated or maintained the building.'

Ta-Tanisha Royal filed the lawsuit on behalf of her daughter, Yanasti Craddock, and son, Yasone Craddock, complaining that the children were poisoned by exposure to mold in an apartment in the Borough of Queens managed by the city’s Housing Authority.

New York General Municipal Law requires claimants to provide notice to the city within 90 days of the time they are aware of any claim (General Municipal Law 50-e), and requires that any lawsuit be filed within one year and 90 days of the date the claim arose.

Royal provided Notice of Claim to the city and housing authority on Sept. 15, 2003, and filed the lawsuit on Sept. 1, 2004.

Justice Flug said it was established that the housing authority was notified of mold in the apartment, that the apartment was repainted in February 2000, that Yanasti Craddock and the mother were both diagnosed with asthma and that the children’s mother asked for a new apartment when the city health inspector instructed the mother not to bring her newborn son, Yasone, home after his birth on Jan. 24, 2002.

'Clearly,' Justice Flug said, 'movant relied to her detriment on assurances of the Housing Authority, that the situation was being corrected.'

Joseph Fleming of New York represents Royal and Yanasti and Yasone Craddock.

The New York City Housing Authority is represented b y the firm of Wilson Elser Moskovitz Edelman & Dicker in New York.
 

# # #

Pure Air Control Services, Inc.

1-800-422-7873