Montgomery v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Montgomery v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority

254 A.D.2d 114, 678 N.Y.S.2d 626, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10857

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 15, 1998·Published

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Douglas McKeon, J.), entered June 27, 1997, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by plaintiff-appellant’s brief, denied plaintiffs cross motion to amend his notice of claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the motion court that plaintiffs proposed amendment to his notice of claim to indicate that the bus with which he collided was moving, and not standing still as he had previously claimed in his bill of particulars, deposition, and comptroller’s hearing testimony, would prejudice defendants (see, Brown v New York City Tr. Auth., 172 AD2d 178). The proposed amendment is particularly prejudicial because discovery has been completed and plaintiffs previous version was consistent with that of the driver of the bus involved in the accident. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Williams and Saxe, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Douglas McKeon, J.), entered June 27, 1997, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by plaintiff-appellant’s brief, denied plaintiffs cross motion to amend his notice of claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the motion court that plaintiffs proposed amendment to his notice of claim to indicate that the bus with which he collided was moving, and not standing still as he had previously claimed in his bill of particulars, deposition, and comptroller’s hearing testimony, would prejudice defendants (see, Brown v New York City Tr. Auth., 172 AD2d 178). The proposed amendment is particularly prejudicial because discovery has been completed and plaintiffs previous version was consistent with that of the driver of the bus involved in the accident. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Williams and Saxe, JJ.

Montgomery v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority, 254 A.D.2d 114, 678 N.Y.S.2d 626, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10857 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

254 A.D.2d 114 (Montgomery v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related