You are here: / / THE ERRORS MADE IN THE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE WERE...
, ,

THE ERRORS MADE IN THE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE WERE NOT MADE IN BAD FAITH AND DID NOT PREJUDICE THE MUNICIPAL DEFENDANT; THEREFORE AMENDMENT OF THE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the erroneous incident-date in the notice of claim did not justify dismissal of the action in this sidewalk slip and fall case. The error was not made in bad faith and did not prejudice the municipal defendant:

The Transit defendants … moved … pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint … on the ground that the notice of claim did not comply with General Municipal Law § 50-e(2), as it incorrectly listed the date of the accident as March 5, 2016, instead of April 5, 2016, and identified the plaintiff as “Maria Hernandez,” instead of “Maria Hernandez-Panell.” …

General Municipal Law § 50-e(2) requires that a notice of claim set forth … “the time when, the place where and the manner in which the claim arose” … . “[I]n determining compliance with the requirements of General Municipal Law § 50-e, courts should focus on the purpose served by a Notice of Claim: whether based on the claimant’s description municipal authorities can locate the place, fix the time and understand the nature of the accident” … . Pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e(6), a court has discretion to grant leave to serve an amended notice of claim where the error in the original notice was made in good faith and where the other party has not been prejudiced thereby … .

Here, there is no indication that the date originally listed in the notice of claim as the accident date was set forth in bad faith, and the Transit defendants did not demonstrate any prejudice as a result of the error … . Moreover, the plaintiff supplied the correct date of the accident at the hearing pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h and Public Authorities Law § 1212(5) … . Hernandez-Panell v City of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 05962, Second Dept 11-27-24

Practice Point: Errors in a notice of claim against a municipality should not result in dismissal of the action if the errors were not made in bad faith and did not prejudice the municipal defendant.​

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS; DEFENDANT AVERRED HIS ATTORNEY DIDN’T REQUEST THE SEARCH WARRANT DOCUMENTS, DIDN’T MAKE A SUPPRESSION MOTION, AND DIDN’T INFORM HIM THAT THE LEGALITY OF THE SEARCH WARRANTS COULD BE CONTESTED (SECOND DEPT).
Res Judicata Doctrine Precluded Suit Despite Naming Additional Parties and Alleging Different Causes of Action and Legal Theories
ONE DEFENDANT BREACHED A CONTRACT; THE OTHER DEFENDANT TORTIOUSLY INTERFERED WITH PLAINTIFF’S PROSPECTIVE BUSINESS RELATIONS; THE JURY AWARDED SEPARATE DAMAGE-AMOUNTS FOR EACH DEFENDANT; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE HELD BOTH DEFENDANTS JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY LIABLE FOR THE COMBINED AMOUNT OF DAMAGES (SECOND DEPT). ​
Trial Court Properly Amended Pleadings Sua Sponte and Properly Allowed Plaintiff to Reopen the Case to Present Additional Evidence of Damages
THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE WAS SENT TO DEFENDANT IN AN ENVELOPE WHICH INCLUDED OTHER NOTICES, A VIOLATION OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).
AS A MATTER OF PUBLIC POLICY AN INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS CAUSE OF ACTION CANNOT BE BROUGHT AGAINST A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for Liability for Lead Paint Exposure Described
PLAINTIFF BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304, AS WELL AS THE NOTICE REQUIRMENTS SPELLED OUT IN THE MORTGAGE (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

DEFENDANT’ CLOTHING STORE’S EMPLOYEE ALLEGEDLY ATTEMPTED TO RECORD... PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT WAS PROPERLY SERVED OR EVEN NOTIFIED...