You are here: / / Amendment of Notice of Claim Including Substantive Changes to the Facts...
,

Amendment of Notice of Claim Including Substantive Changes to the Facts and New Theories of Liability Should Not Have Been Allowed—Original Notice of Claim Inadequate

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court finding that plaintiff’s motion to amend the notice of claim should have been denied and the complaint dismissed:

Amendments to notices of claim are appropriate only to correct good faith and nonprejudicial “technical mistakes, defects, or omissions, not substantive changes in the theory of liability” … . Here, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiff’s cross motion for leave to serve and file an amended notice of claim. The proposed amendments to the notice of claim included substantive changes to the facts, adding that the plaintiff was injured after he climbed a ladder to go over a fence, changing the situs of the accident, and identifying the plaintiff as a worker at the site. The proposed amendments to the notice of claim also added a theory of liability under the Labor Law. Such changes are not technical in nature and are not permitted as late-filed amendments to a notice of claim under General Municipal Law § 50-e(6) … . Granting leave to serve and file the proposed amended notice of claim would prejudice the Housing Authority by depriving it of the opportunity to promptly and meaningfully investigate the claim … .

Moreover, the Supreme Court should have granted the Housing Authority’s motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it on the ground that the notice of claim was inadequate. A notice of claim must provide timely notice of the essential facts and legal theories supporting the claims alleged in the complaint … . The test of the sufficiency of a notice of claim is whether it includes enough information to enable the defendant to promptly investigate the allegations at issue … . The plaintiff’s original notice of claim did not sufficiently apprise the Housing Authority of the relevant facts or legal theories supporting the plaintiff’s claims to enable the Housing Authority to promptly and adequately investigate the allegations at issue in the complaint, resulting in prejudice to the Housing Department … . Ahmed v New York City Hous Auth, 2014 NY Slip Op 04883, 2nd Dept 7-2-14

 

You might also like
A PERMANENT INJUNCTION IS NOT APPROPRIATE WHERE PLAINTIFFS DO NOT ALLEGE ANY NONECONOMIC DAMAGES (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS NOT REQUIRED TO MEET THE 90-DAY-NOTICE REQUIREMENT OF RPAPL 1304 BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT HAD MOVED FROM THE RESIDENCE; HOWEVER THE BANK WAS STILL REQUIRED BY RPAPL 1304 TO PROVIDE NOTICE OF THE FORECLOSURE TO THE DEFENDANT; THE PROOF THAT NOTICE WAS MAILED WAS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).
OFFICER DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY WHEN HE ASKED DEFENDANT ‘WHAT DO YOU HAVE,’ SEIZED WEAPON SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT).
Ordinary Negligence Standard Applied Where Ambulance (Responding to an Emergency) Struck Plaintiff Who Was Lawfully in the Crosswalk/Questions of Fact Whether There Was a “Special Relationship” Between the City’s Crossing Guard and the Plaintiff, and Whether the Crossing Guard Was Performing Ministerial, Rather than Discretionary, Functions (Such that the City Could Be Held Liable)
THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS ENGAGED IN REPAIR AS OPPOSED TO ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OF THE AIR CONDITIONER WHEN HE WAS INJURED; THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DIMSISS THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION WAS PROPERLY DENIED; HOWEVER THE LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMIISED BECAUSE PLAINTIFF WAS NOT INVOLVED IN CONSTRUCTION (SECOND DEPT).
THE CAUSES OF ACTION FOR INDEMNITY AND CONTRIBUTION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE DO NOT ACCRUE UNTIL THE UNDERLYING CLAIM IS PAID, WHICH HAS NOT HAPPENED YET; THEREFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ON THOSE CAUSES OF ACTION HAS NOT YET STARTED TO RUN (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE READY-FOR-TRIAL ANNOUNCEMENT WAS TIMELY, IT WAS ILLUSORY BECAUSE THE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH DISCOVERY OBLIGATIONS HAD NOT BEEN FILED; INDICTMENT PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Lack of Notice of Alleged Dangerous Condition Established by Custodian’s... Statement Made Before Any Possible Motive to Falsify Should Have Been Admitted...