Matos v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matos v. City of New York

126 A.D.3d 570, 3 N.Y.S.3d 579

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 19, 2015

Docket14553 304214/10

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 126 A.D.3d 570 (Matos v. City of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Matos v. City of New York, 126 A.D.3d 570, 3 N.Y.S.3d 579 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

*571 Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Larry S. Schachner, J.), entered January 17, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiffs motion for leave to serve an amended notice of claim and an amended complaint, and granted defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly denied plaintiffs motion to amend the notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (6) and to amend the complaint, because plaintiffs inconsistency as to the location of the accident and her failure to move timely to correct the notice of claim prejudiced defendant City’s ability to investigate the incident while the surrounding facts were still fresh (see Rodriguez v City of New York, 38 AD3d 268 [1st Dept 2007]). Plaintiffs vague General Municipal Law § 50-h testimony and the photographs she provided in which she was unable to identify the accident location failed to correct the defect.

The court properly considered defendant Restani’s second motion for summary judgment, having expressly granted Restani leave to renew after discovery. Restani established prima facie that it could not have created the defect in the road that allegedly caused plaintiff to trip and fall, and plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact in opposition.

Concur — Tom, J.P., Acosta, Andrias, Moskowitz and Kapnick, JJ.

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

*571 Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Larry S. Schachner, J.), entered January 17, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiffs motion for leave to serve an amended notice of claim and an amended complaint, and granted defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly denied plaintiffs motion to amend the notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (6) and to amend the complaint, because plaintiffs inconsistency as to the location of the accident and her failure to move timely to correct the notice of claim prejudiced defendant City’s ability to investigate the incident while the surrounding facts were still fresh (see Rodriguez v City of New York, 38 AD3d 268 [1st Dept 2007]). Plaintiffs vague General Municipal Law § 50-h testimony and the photographs she provided in which she was unable to identify the accident location failed to correct the defect.

The court properly considered defendant Restani’s second motion for summary judgment, having expressly granted Restani leave to renew after discovery. Restani established prima facie that it could not have created the defect in the road that allegedly caused plaintiff to trip and fall, and plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact in opposition.

Concur — Tom, J.P., Acosta, Andrias, Moskowitz and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 A.D.3d 570, 3 N.Y.S.3d 579, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matos-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack