Formanek v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Formanek v. New York City Housing Authority

197 A.D.2d 664, 603 N.Y.S.2d 15, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9928

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 25, 1993·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

—In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), dated July 8, 1991, which granted the plaintiff’s motion for leave to serve an amended notice of claim and amended complaint and denied its cross motion to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff moved pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (6) for leave to serve an amended notice of claim to correct the date of the accident listed in the original notice of claim. We find that the error was not made in bad faith. Furthermore, the defendant has not demonstrated any actual prejudice, nor is there any reason to presume the existence of prejudice from this record. Under the circumstances of this case, the court properly exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiff’s motion (see, General Municipal Law § 50-e [6]; Tucker v Long Is. R. R. Co., 128 AD2d 517; cf., Toro v City of New York, 196 AD2d 864). Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Fiber and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

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

—In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), dated July 8, 1991, which granted the plaintiff’s motion for leave to serve an amended notice of claim and amended complaint and denied its cross motion to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff moved pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (6) for leave to serve an amended notice of claim to correct the date of the accident listed in the original notice of claim. We find that the error was not made in bad faith. Furthermore, the defendant has not demonstrated any actual prejudice, nor is there any reason to presume the existence of prejudice from this record. Under the circumstances of this case, the court properly exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiff’s motion (see, General Municipal Law § 50-e [6]; Tucker v Long Is. R. R. Co., 128 AD2d 517; cf., Toro v City of New York, 196 AD2d 864). Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Fiber and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

Formanek v. New York City Housing Authority, 197 A.D.2d 664, 603 N.Y.S.2d 15, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9928 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

197 A.D.2d 664 (Formanek v. New York City Housing Authority) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related