You are here: / / MOTION TO AMEND NOTICE OF CLAIM TO ADD NEW THEORY OF LIABILITY SHOULD NOT...
,

MOTION TO AMEND NOTICE OF CLAIM TO ADD NEW THEORY OF LIABILITY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff's motion to amend the notice of claim should not have been granted. The notice of claim alleged plaintiff fell because of an uneven, broken sidewalk. The amended notice of claim alleged plaintiff slipped on snow or ice:

“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 proposed amendments to the notice of claim included a substantive change to the facts and added a new theory of liability. “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]” … . Moreover, under the circumstances of this case, the granting of leave to serve and file the proposed amended notice of claim prejudiced NYCHA by depriving it of the opportunity to promptly and meaningfully investigate the claim … .

Nor would it have been proper to grant the plaintiff's cross motion on the basis that it was, in effect, for leave to serve and file a late notice of claim. The plaintiff's motion was not made until May 13, 2014, or almost two years and four months after the happening of the accident on January 21, 2012. The plaintiff's failure to petition for leave to serve a late notice of claim within 1 year and 90 days of the date that his claim accrued deprived the Supreme Court of authority to permit late service of a notice of claim … . Robinson v City of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 03156, 2nd Dept 4-27-16


You might also like
NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE LONG-ARM OR PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER THE ITALIAN MANUFACTURER OF A HOSE USED AS A COMPONENT IN A DISHWASHER MADE AND SOLD BY A NONPARTY (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE AFFIDAVIT RELIED UPON BY PLAINTIFF IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION TO PROVE DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT DID NOT IDENTIFY OR ATTACH THE RELEVANT BUSINESS RECORDS AND THEREFORE THE AFFIDAVIT HAD NO PROBATIVE VALUE (SECOND DEPT).
BANK’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO RENEW AND REARGUE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
BANK DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE STATUTORY NOTICE REQUIREMENTS IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION 2ND DEPT.
PLAINTIFF IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304, INCLUDING THE “SINGLE ENVELOPE” RULE (SECOND DEPT).
AVILA WAS INJURED WHEN HER SPOUSE LOST CONTROL OF THE CAR AND STRUCK A PARKED CAR; THE POLICY EXPRESSLY STATED COVERAGE DID NOT EXTEND TO THE INSURED’S SPOUSE; IN THE ABSENCE OF AN EXPRESS PROVISION THE INSURER IS NOT REQUIRED TO COVER THE INSURED’S SPOUSE (SECOND DEPT).
PETITIONER JUDGMENT-CREDITOR WAS ENTITLED TO THE TURNOVER OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WHICH HAD BEEN FRAUDULENTLY TRANSFERRED TO A TRUST BY THE RESPONDENT JUDGMENT-DEBTORS, AS WELL AS THE CONTENTS OF RESPONDENTS’ SAFETY DEPOSIT BOX (SECOND DEPT).
USE OF SIGNERS’ POST OFFICE BOX ADDRESSES ON THE DESIGNATING PETITION WAS PROPER (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

CODE PROVISION DID NOT SPECIFICALLY IMPOSE TORT LIABILITY ON ABUTTING LANDOWNERS... BENEFICIARIES OF ESTATE DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO BRING AN ACTION TO PRESERVE...