You are here: / / Critieria for Amendement of a Notice of Claim Explained
, ,

Critieria for Amendement of a Notice of Claim Explained

The First Department determined Supreme Court should have granted plaintiff’s motion to amend the notice of claim to include mention of a defective handrail, despite plaintiff’s failure to invoke the proper statutory authority (General Municipla Law 50-e(5)). The court explained the criteria for an amendment:

Under GML § 50-e(5), a notice of claim may be amended within one year and ninety days of an accident to include new theories of liability … . Plaintiff’s cross motion was made eleven months after the accident, well within the one-year-and-ninety- day limitation period.

In determining whether an application for leave to serve a late notice of claim should be granted, a court shall consider “whether the public corporation . . . acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within the time specified in subdivision one . . . or within a reasonable time thereafter” (GML § 50-e[5]). The court shall also consider “all other relevant facts and circumstances,” including whether the delay “substantially prejudiced the public corporation in maintaining its defense on the merits” (id.).

“In determining whether the city was prejudiced by any mistake, omission, irregularity or defect in the notice [of claim], the court may look to evidence adduced at a section 50-h hearing, and to such other evidence as is properly before the court'” … . * * *

We have previously held that prejudice will not be presumed … . Moreover, “[i]t may not be shown without evidence of an attempt to investigate the accident” … . Given defendant’s actual knowledge of the facts constituting the claim within a reasonable time after the accident, and the lack of evidence of an attempt to conduct an investigation either before or after it obtained knowledge of the issue concerning the handrail in this accident …, “conclusory assertions of prejudice, based solely on the delay in serving the notice of claim, are insufficient” … . Thomas v New York City Hous. Auth., 2015 NY Slip Op 07328, 1st Dept 10-8-15

 

You might also like
AFTER FINDING SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE BY DEFENDANTS, THE JUDGE FASHIONED AN ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION TO BE GIVEN AT TRIAL; THE CHARGE IMPROPERLY REQUIRED, RATHER THAN PERMITTED, THE JURY TO FIND SPOLIATION; THE JUDGE WAS ORDERED TO REVISE THE CHARGE (FIRST DEPT).
THE COMPLAINT DID NOT STATE CAUSES OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF STEPPED INTO A TRENCH WHICH HAD BEEN FILLED WITH SOFT SOIL AND SANK DOWN TO ABOVE HIS KNEE; SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
Defendant’s Waiver of 12-Person Jury Upheld
WHEN THE CONTRACTOR’S EMPLOYEE ARRIVED TO CLEAN THE TANK, THE OPENING WAS COVERED ONLY BY CARDBOARD; AFTER FINISHING THE WORK, THE EMPLOYEE REPLACED THE CARDBOARD COVER; PLAINTIFF SUBSEQUENTLY STEPPED ON THE CARDBOARD AND FELL INTO THE TANK; THE CONTRACTOR’S EMPLOYEE DID NOT LAUNCH AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM WITHIN THE MEANING OF ESPINAL, 98 NY2D 140 (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE INCAPACITATED PERSON (IP) WAS “INSANE” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CPLR WHEN HE WAS REPRESENTED BY THE DEFENDANT ATTORNEY MUST BE DETERMINED AT THE LEGAL MALPRACTICE TRIAL; IF THE IP WAS INSANE, THE MALPRACTICE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WILL BE TOLLED; IF NOT THE MALPRACTICE ACTION IS UNTIMELY (FIRST DEPT).
THE ARBITRATOR EXCEEDED HER POWERS BY AWARDING RELIEF WHICH WAS NOT REQUESTED BY ALL THE PARTIES OR AUTHORIZED BY LAW; PUNITIVE DAMAGES, SANCTIONS AND ATTORNEY’S FEES AWARDS VACATED (FIRST DEPT).
Adjournment Which Would Not Affect Trial Date Should Have Been Granted

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

Late Disclaimer on a Valid Ground Not Excused Criteria for Lead-Paint-Exposure Cause of Action Described