You are here: / / HERE IN THIS BUS-PASSENGER-INJURY ACTION AGAINST THE CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY,...
, , ,

HERE IN THIS BUS-PASSENGER-INJURY ACTION AGAINST THE CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, PLAINTIFF STATED THE WRONG ACCIDENT-DATE IN THE NOTICE OF CLAIM; BECAUSE THE WRONG DATE WAS NOT USED IN BAD FAITH AND THE CITY WAS NOT PREJUDICED, PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO AMEND THE NOTICE OF CLAIM (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the wrong accident-date in the notice of claim did not warrant dismissal of the action. The wrong date was not willful and the municipality was not prejudiced. The plaintiff alleged she was injured when the driver of the defendant NYC Transit Authority’s bus stopped short:

“‘To enable authorities to investigate, collect evidence and evaluate the merit of a claim, persons seeking to recover in tort against a municipality are required, as a precondition to suit, to serve a Notice of Claim'” … . General Municipal Law § 50-e(2) requires that the notice of claim set forth, among other things, “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 in the record that the accident date listed in the notice of claim and the complaint was set forth in bad faith … . Rather, the plaintiff’s mistake was based upon her reliance on a police report that incorrectly listed the accident date … . Moreover, contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the proposed amendment to the accident date was purely technical in nature and did not substantively change the nature of the claim … .

Furthermore, the record does not reflect that the defendants will be prejudiced by the plaintiff’s delay in moving for leave to amend the notice of claim. Under the circumstances of this case, including that the plaintiff received medical assistance at the accident site, that specific details regarding the circumstances of the accident, including the accident location and bus route, were set forth in a police report and the notice of claim, and that the plaintiff’s error in listing an accident date several days prior to the actual date of the accident was minimal, the defendants could have ascertained the date of the accident “with a modicum of effort” … . Hernandez v City of New York, 2025 NY Slip Op 03312, Second Dept 5-4-25

Practice Point: Here the wrong accident-date was included in the notice of claim and the plaintiff moved to amend the notice. Because the wrong date was not used in bad faith (the date was taken from the police report) and because the city was not prejudiced by the error, plaintiff’s motion to amend the notice of claim should have been granted.

 

You might also like
Police Officer Who Refused a Light-Duty Assignment Was Not Entitled to Disability Benefits Pursuant to General Municipal Law 207-c
BUS COMPANY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE BUS DRIVER SIGNALED TO DEFENDANT DRIVER TO PASS THE BUS AND THE DRIVER EITHER STRUCK THE WHEEL CHAIR LIFT OR THE PLAINTIFF WHO WAS STANDING ON THE LIFT (SECOND DEPT).
BANKRUPTCY EXCEPTION TO THE INSURED VS INSURED EXCLUSION IN THIS DIRECTORS & OFFICERS LIABILITY INSURANCE POLICY APPLIED TO THE CREDITOR TRUST FORMED TO PURSUE THE BANKRUPTCY ESTATE’S LEGAL CLAIMS ON BEHALF OF UNSECURED CREDITORS (FIRST DEPT).
Question of Fact Whether Failure to Wear a Harness Precluded Recovery in a Labor Law 240 (1) Action
ALTHOUGH THE OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORDS WERE OBLIGATED TO MAKE REPAIRS, THEY DEMONSTRATED THEY DID NOT CREATE THE ALLEGED DANGEROUS CONDITION AND DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF IT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
OPENINGS THROUGH WHICH A WORKER’S BODY COULD NOT COMPLETELY FALL NOT ACTIONABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) OR 241(6).
PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENGAGED IN CONSTRUCTION WORK OR IN A CONSTRUCTION AREA WHEN HE WAS INJURED, HE WAS BRINGING IN SUPPLIES WHICH WERE BEING STOCKPILED AND WERE NOT FOR IMMEDIATE USE, THEREFORE THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) CAUSES OF ACTION WERE PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE GRANTED DEFENDANTS’ ATTORNEY’S REQUEST FOR AN INTERPRETER; A NEW HEARING TO DETERMINE THE VALIDITY OF SERVICE OF PROCESS IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS REQUIRED (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

RPAPL 1304 REQUIRES THAT THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE BE MAILED SEPARATELY TO EACH... HERE AN ARGUMENT RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN PLAINTIFF’S REPLY PAPERS...