You are here: / / PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS SHOT IN A DARK AREA OF DEFENDANT NEW YORK...
, , ,

PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS SHOT IN A DARK AREA OF DEFENDANT NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY’S (NYCHA’S) APARTMENT COMPLEX; THE NOTICE OF CLAIM ALLEGED THE LACK OF LIGHTING CONSTITUTED NEGLIGENT SECURITY; THE ADDITIONAL ALLEGATIONS OF SECURITY-RELATED NEGLIGENCE IN THE BILL OF PARTICULARS SHOULD HAVE BEEN STRUCK (SECOND DEPT).

​The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined certain allegations of negligence in the bill of particulars should have been struck because the notice of claim did not provide notice of them. The appellate division interpreted the notice of claim to allege that the lack of security at defendant’s apartment complex stemmed from inadequate lighting. Plaintiff’s decedent was shot and killed in an area which, allegedly, was completely dark. The additional claims of negligence in the bill of particulars were struck:

… [T]he crux of the notice of claim is that [defendant] NYCHA was negligent in failing to provide adequate security by failing to provide adequate lighting at the location where the decedent was shot and killed … .

… [T]he notice of claim did not directly or indirectly reference those allegations raised in … the bill of particulars that concern NYCHA’s failure to protect tenants from criminal activities and criminal intrusions, NYCHA’s failure to remove alleged known criminals from its premises in violation of its Permanent Exclusion Policy and Real Property Law § 231(2), NYCHA’s failure to install CCTV cameras, and the alleged sale of drugs on NYCHA premises. These allegations go beyond mere amplification of the inadequate lighting allegation and are instead new, distinct, and independent theories of liability that cannot be corrected pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e(6) … .Mosley v City of New York, 2023 NY Slip Op 03345, Second Dept 6-21-23

Practice Point: The General Municipal Law section 50-e(6) allows mistakes or omissions from a notice of claim to be overlooked where the defendant is not prejudiced. Here the appellate division interpreted the notice of claim to allege the defendant housing authority’s only negligence was the failure to provide adequate lighting in the area where plaintiff’s decedent was shot. Therefore the additional allegations of negligent security in the bill of particulars (“failure to protect tenants from criminal activities and criminal intrusions, NYCHA’s failure to remove alleged known criminals from its premises in violation of its Permanent Exclusion Policy and Real Property Law § 231(2), NYCHA’s failure to install CCTV cameras, and the alleged sale of drugs on NYCHA premises“) should have been struck.

 

You might also like
SELF-SERVING STATEMENTS OF AN INTERESTED PARTY (THE PLAINTIFF IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE) WHICH REFERRED TO MATTERS EXCLUSIVELY WITHIN THAT PARTY’S KNOWLEDGE CREATED AN ISSUE OF CREDIBILITY PRECLUDING SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF, A PASSENGER IN A STOPPED CAR HIT FROM BEHIND, WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT, WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF’S DRIVER WAS COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT NO LONGER PRECLUDES SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANTS WERE ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION FROM SNOW-ICE SIDEWALK-FALL LIABILITY UNDER THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, THEY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE HAZARD WAS NOT CREATED BY THEIR SNOW REMOVAL EFFORTS, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED.
CLAIMANT DEMONSTRATED SHE CONTRACTED COVID AT THE WORKPLACE AND WAS ENTITLED TO WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED.
PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN A PIECE OF WIRE STRUCK HIS EYE WHEN HE WAS USING A NAIL GUN; PLAINTIFF DID NOT ELIMINATE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE WORK HE WAS DOING REQUIRED EYE PROTECTION WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE RELEVANT INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO HOLD DEFENDANT IN CIVIL CONTEMPT FOR FAILURE TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT AND DEFENDANT’S PETITION TO REDUCE THE CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS; FAMILY COURT HAD GRANTED DEFENDANT’S PETITION AND DENIED PLAINTIFF’S MOTION WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING (SECOND DEPT). ​
ALLOWING DEFENDANT TO BE CROSS-EXAMINED ABOUT A PRIOR ROBBERY WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT OF A PENDING APPEAL WAS ERROR, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (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

THE APPLICABLE STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS FOR DECLARATORY-JUDGMENT CAUSES OF ACTION... NO APPEAL LIES FROM AN ORDER ISSUED ON DEFAULT, A MOTION TO VACATE IS THE ONLY...