Ritchie v. Felix Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ritchie v. Felix Associates

60 A.D.3d 402, 873 N.Y.S.2d 628

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

DecidedMarch 3, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 60 A.D.3d 402 (Ritchie v. Felix Associates) 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

Ritchie v. Felix Associates, 60 A.D.3d 402, 873 N.Y.S.2d 628 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter B. Tolub, J.), entered August 20, 2008, which, in an action for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff Brian Ritchie when he tripped and fell as he stepped off an allegedly improperly constructed sidewalk curb, granted plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the notice of claim, complaint and all subsequent pleadings to correct the date of the accident from March 15, 2005 to March 2, 2005, and denied defendants-appellants ’ cross motion to amend the answer of defendant City of New York and for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claims based on plaintiffs’ failure to satisfy the requirements of General Municipal Law § 50-e (2), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court providently exercised its discretion in granting plaintiffs’ motion (see General Municipal Law § 50-e [6]). Although three years passed between the date of the accident and the subject motion, the record does not demonstrate any lack of good faith on plaintiffs’ part. Furthermore, given that discovery in this action has not commenced, defendants fail to demonstrate any actual prejudice, nor is there any apparent prejudice to them given the nontransitory nature of the defect (see Matter of Puzio v City of New York, 24 AD3d 679 [2005]; Fabian v New York City Tr. Auth., 271 AD2d 244 [2000]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Gonzalez, Sweeny, McGuire and DeGrasse, JJ. [See 2008 NY Slip Op 32340(U).]

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter B. Tolub, J.), entered August 20, 2008, which, in an action for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff Brian Ritchie when he tripped and fell as he stepped off an allegedly improperly constructed sidewalk curb, granted plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the notice of claim, complaint and all subsequent pleadings to correct the date of the accident from March 15, 2005 to March 2, 2005, and denied defendants-appellants ’ cross motion to amend the answer of defendant City of New York and for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claims based on plaintiffs’ failure to satisfy the requirements of General Municipal Law § 50-e (2), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court providently exercised its discretion in granting plaintiffs’ motion (see General Municipal Law § 50-e [6]). Although three years passed between the date of the accident and the subject motion, the record does not demonstrate any lack of good faith on plaintiffs’ part. Furthermore, given that discovery in this action has not commenced, defendants fail to demonstrate any actual prejudice, nor is there any apparent prejudice to them given the nontransitory nature of the defect (see Matter of Puzio v City of New York, 24 AD3d 679 [2005]; Fabian v New York City Tr. Auth., 271 AD2d 244 [2000]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Gonzalez, Sweeny, McGuire and DeGrasse, JJ. [See 2008 NY Slip Op 32340(U).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 A.D.3d 402, 873 N.Y.S.2d 628, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ritchie-v-felix-associates-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack