Donaldson v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Donaldson v. New York City Housing Authority

91 A.D.3d 550, 937 N.Y.2d 195

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 24, 2012·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

[551]*551Leave to amend the notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (6) was improperly granted since the statute only “authorizes the correction of good faith, nonprejudicial, technical defects or omissions, not substantive changes in the theory of liability” (Scott v City of New York, 40 AD3d 408, 410 [2007]). Plaintiffs proposed amendment impermissibly sought to change the theory of liability from a slip and fall on the sidewalk outside defendant’s building due to an accumulation of snow/ice, to a slip and fall due to a wet metal weather strip located on the threshold of the building’s front door (see Santana v New York City Tr. Auth., 88 AD3d 539 [2011]; Torres v New York City Hous. Auth., 261 AD2d 273 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 816 [1999]). Moreover, the prejudice to defendant is apparent inasmuch as the original notice of claim was insufficient to allow defendant to conduct a meaningful investigation of plaintiffs amended claim (see Santana at 540). Concur — Tom, J.P, Friedman, DeGrasse, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[551]*551Leave to amend the notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (6) was improperly granted since the statute only “authorizes the correction of good faith, nonprejudicial, technical defects or omissions, not substantive changes in the theory of liability” (Scott v City of New York, 40 AD3d 408, 410 [2007]). Plaintiffs proposed amendment impermissibly sought to change the theory of liability from a slip and fall on the sidewalk outside defendant’s building due to an accumulation of snow/ice, to a slip and fall due to a wet metal weather strip located on the threshold of the building’s front door (see Santana v New York City Tr. Auth., 88 AD3d 539 [2011]; Torres v New York City Hous. Auth., 261 AD2d 273 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 816 [1999]). Moreover, the prejudice to defendant is apparent inasmuch as the original notice of claim was insufficient to allow defendant to conduct a meaningful investigation of plaintiffs amended claim (see Santana at 540). Concur — Tom, J.P, Friedman, DeGrasse, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Donaldson v. New York City Housing Authority, 91 A.D.3d 550, 937 N.Y.2d 195 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

91 A.D.3d 550 (Donaldson v. New York City Housing Authority) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related