You are here: / / AMENDMENT OF NOTICE OF CLAIM TO ALLEGE A DIFFERENT THEORY (CREATION OF...
,

AMENDMENT OF NOTICE OF CLAIM TO ALLEGE A DIFFERENT THEORY (CREATION OF THE DEFECT) IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED.

The First Department determined plaintiff’s motion to amend the notice of claim in this slip and fall case was properly denied. The original notice of claim and the complaint alleged the protruding manhole cover over which plaintiff tripped was the result of improper maintenance. The proposed amendment sought to allege the defendant city created the dangerous condition:

The allegations of negligent maintenance in the notice of claim did not provide notice of plaintiff’s new theory of affirmative negligence … . Thus, General Municipal Law § 50-e(6), which “authorizes the correction of good faith, nonprejudicial, technical defects or omissions, not substantive changes in the theory of liability” … , does not apply. Further, General Municipal Law § 50-e(5) does not authorize amendment of the notice of claim to assert a new theory of liability where, as here, the limitations period has expired … .

Even assuming that the “special use” theory is not a new theory of liability, leave to amend to add it would be futile, since the City’s ownership of the manhole cover does not constitute a “special use” of the sidewalk … . Aleksandrova v City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 04379, 1st Dept 6-1-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, AMENDMENT OF NOTICE OF CLAIM TO ALLEGE A DIFFERENT THEORY (CREATION OF THE DEFECT) IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED)/MUNICIPAL LAW (NOTICE OF CLAIM, AMENDMENT OF NOTICE OF CLAIM TO ALLEGE A DIFFERENT THEORY (CREATION OF THE DEFECT) IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED)/NOTICE OF CLAIM, (MUNICIPAL LAW, AMENDMENT OF NOTICE OF CLAIM TO ALLEGE A DIFFERENT THEORY (CREATION OF THE DEFECT) IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED)/SLIP AND FALL (MUNICIPAL LAW, AMENDMENT OF NOTICE OF CLAIM TO ALLEGE A DIFFERENT THEORY (CREATION OF THE DEFECT) IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED)/SIDEWALKS (SLIP AND FALL, MUNICIPAL LAW, AMENDMENT OF NOTICE OF CLAIM TO ALLEGE A DIFFERENT THEORY (CREATION OF THE DEFECT) IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED)

You might also like
IT IS ONLY PURSUANT TO EXECUTIVE LAW 63(3) THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (AS OPPOSED TO A COUNTY PROSECUTOR) IS EMPOWERED BRING A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION; THE EXECUTIVE LAW ALLOWS REQUESTS FOR AN AG PROSECUTION ONLY FROM THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, NOT THE JUDICIAL BRANCH; HERE THE CHIEF JUDGE REQUESTED THE PROSECUTION; A WRIT OF PROHIBITION ENJOINING THE PROSECUTION WAS GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
THE PRESENTENCE INTERVIEW WAS CANCELLED DUE TO TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES; THEREFORE THE PRESENTENCE REPORT WAS DEVOID OF INFORMATION ABOUT DEFENDANT’S EDUCATION, EMPLOYMENT, HEALTH STATUS, MENTAL HEALTH AND DEFENDANT’S MOTIVE; ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS SENTENCED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLEA AGREEMENT, THE DEFICIENT PRESENTENCE INVESTIGATION AND REPORT REQUIRED VACATION OF THE SENTENCE (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A SCAFFOLD WHICH DID NOT HAVE GUARDRAILS AND WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION DESPITE DEFENDANTS’ ARGUMENTS THAT PLAINTIFF DID NOT LOCK THE WHEELS ON THE SCAFFOLD AND PLAINTIFF MAY HAVE FAINTED OR STEPPED BACKWARDS OFF THE SCAFFOLD (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANTS PRESENTED NO EVIDENCE OF SNOW REMOVAL EFFORTS OR LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE IN THIS ICE-ON-SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
FAILURE TO PRODUCE DEFENDANT FOR A PROBATION INTERVIEW FOR THE PRESENTENCE REPORT REQUIRED RESENTENCING.
ALTHOUGH THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE SIDEWALK DEFECT WAS TAKEN A YEAR BEFORE THE SLIP AND FALL, PLAINTIFF’S TESTIMONY THE PHOTO ACCURATELY AND FAIRLY DEPICTED THE CONDITION OF THE SIDEWALK AT THE TIME OF THE FALL WAS SUFFICIENT (FIRST DEPT). ​
THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFFS WERE NOT REQUIRED TO AND DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROCEEDINGS; THEREFORE THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD’S FINDING THAT THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT WAS PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER WAS NOT BINDING ON THE THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFFS (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF A HOLE WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF TO FALL, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED.

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

REFERENCES TO DEFENDANT’S PRIOR COMMISSION OF A VIOLENT CRIME AND IMPRISONMENT... ALTHOUGH CLAIMANTS WERE TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES HIRED BECAUSE OF HURRICANE DAMAGE,...