You are here: / / ALTHOUGH THE COURT HAS THE DISCRETION TO ALLOW AMENDMENT OF A NOTICE OF...
, , ,

ALTHOUGH THE COURT HAS THE DISCRETION TO ALLOW AMENDMENT OF A NOTICE OF CLAIM BASED UPON EVIDENCE GIVEN AT THE 50-H HEARING, THE AMENDMENT CANNOT SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGE THE FACTS AND ADD A NEW THEORY OF LIABILITY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the petitioner’s motion to amend the notice of claim in this medical malpractice action against the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation should not have been granted. Although the court has the power to allow amendment of a notice of claim based upon evidence given at the 50-h hearing, the amendment cannot substantively change the facts and add a new theory of liability:

After a hearing was conducted pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h … , the petitioner served an amended notice of claim … expanding the dates of alleged malpractice from January 2, 2014, through September 6, 2018, based on the petitioner’s testimony at the hearing that the decedent had stomach pains since 2016, had been diagnosed with paralytic ileus, and had been treated for that condition by a physician affiliated with Coney Island Hospital since approximately 2016. …

“‘A notice of claim may be amended only to correct good faith and nonprejudicial technical mistakes, omissions, or defects, not to substantively change the nature of the claim or the theory of liability'” … . “[W]hile a court has the discretion to permit a plaintiff to serve an amended notice of claim, amendment is permitted only where the error in the original notice of claim was made in good faith, the municipality is not prejudiced, and the amendment does not substantively change the nature of the claim” … . “A court may consider evidence adduced at a 50-h hearing to correct a good faith and nonprejudicial technical mistake, omission, irregularity, or defect in the notice of claim. However, the evidence adduced at the 50-h hearing cannot be used to substantively change the nature of the claim or the theory of liability” … . Matter of Lesaine v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2021 NY Slip Op 06617, Second Dept 11-24-21

 

You might also like
Plaintiff Bicyclist Entitled to Summary Judgment—Defendant Driver Made a Left Turn into a Parking Lot When Plaintiff Was Riding in Oncoming Lane
“Outside Influence Upon the Jury” Argument Rejected—“Weight of the Evidence” Review Required New Trial [Editor’s Note—There Appears [to Me] to Be No Difference Between What Can Be Reviewed Under the “Weight of the Evidence” Criteria, Which Need Not Be Preserved by a Motion to Dismiss, and What Can Be Reviewed Under the “Legally Sufficient Evidence” Criteria, Which Must Be Preserved by a Specific Motion to Dismiss]
EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE FINDING THAT DEFENDANT BREACHED THE CONTRACT TO CREATE A WEBSITE FOR PLAINTIFF, JUDGMENT AFTER A NON-JURY TRIAL REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
Erroneous Admission of Hearsay and Expert Testimony Re: ANSI Standards Required Reversal of Million Dollar Verdict in Slip and Fall Case
PURSUANT TO THE VILLAGE CODE, WRITTEN NOTICE BY MAIL AND PUBLICATION IS SUFFICIENT NOTICE OF A TAX LIEN AND SALE (SECOND DEPT).
THE COUNTY LEGISLATURE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION REQUIRING THE DISCLOSURE OF AN ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S FINANCIAL INFORMATION AFTER THE COUNTY ETHICS COMMITTEE DENIED THE DISCLOSURE-REQUEST MADE BY A NEWSPAPER; THE LEGISLATURE USURPED THE POWER OF A REVIEWING COURT (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE ACTION AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF THE MORTGAGE AND RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).
Petition for the Opportunity to Ballot Not Demonstrated to Have Been Permeated by Fraud

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

THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE MIRANDA WARNINGS WERE READ TO DEFENDANT BEFORE... THE PLANNING BOARD DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO WAIVE OR IGNORE THE REQUIREMENTS...