Garcia-Menocal v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Garcia-Menocal v. City of New York

157 A.D.2d 560, 550 N.Y.S.2d 302, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 825

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 23, 1990·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Diane Lebedeff, J.), entered April 10, 1989, which denied plaintiffs’ motion to amend their notice of claim, and granted defendant City of New York’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

In this personal injury action involving a pedestrian’s sidewalk fall, the notice filed pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e admittedly described the accident site as in front of 225 Seventh Avenue, Manhattan, although the accident actually occurred at 362 Seventh Avenue, approximately seven blocks away. The complaint served by the plaintiffs was similarly erroneous. The defendant city was undoubtedly prejudiced by the mistake. It made a thorough investigation of the 225 location within several weeks of being given the notice. The [561] IAS court was correct in denying amendment of the notice of claim. By the time the city learned, over two years later, of the actual location of the accident, it could no longer conduct a proper investigation. (See, Alvarez v City of New York, 155 AD2d 373.) Concur Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Carro and Rosenberger, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Diane Lebedeff, J.), entered April 10, 1989, which denied plaintiffs’ motion to amend their notice of claim, and granted defendant City of New York’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

In this personal injury action involving a pedestrian’s sidewalk fall, the notice filed pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e admittedly described the accident site as in front of 225 Seventh Avenue, Manhattan, although the accident actually occurred at 362 Seventh Avenue, approximately seven blocks away. The complaint served by the plaintiffs was similarly erroneous. The defendant city was undoubtedly prejudiced by the mistake. It made a thorough investigation of the 225 location within several weeks of being given the notice. The [561] IAS court was correct in denying amendment of the notice of claim. By the time the city learned, over two years later, of the actual location of the accident, it could no longer conduct a proper investigation. (See, Alvarez v City of New York, 155 AD2d 373.) Concur Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Carro and Rosenberger, JJ.

Garcia-Menocal v. City of New York, 157 A.D.2d 560, 550 N.Y.S.2d 302, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 825 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

157 A.D.2d 560 (Garcia-Menocal v. City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related