Shagabaeva v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Shagabaeva v. City of New York

269 A.D.2d 587, 703 N.Y.S.2d 746, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2339

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

DecidedFebruary 28, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 269 A.D.2d 587 (Shagabaeva 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

Shagabaeva v. City of New York, 269 A.D.2d 587, 703 N.Y.S.2d 746, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2339 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages [588]*588for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated March 30, 1999, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied her cross motion for leave to amend her notice of claim.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and as an exercise of discretion, with costs, the motion is denied, the complaint is reinstated, and the cross motion is granted.

General Municipal Law § 50-e (6) provides that a good faith “mistake, omission, irregularity or defect” in a notice of claim may be corrected in the court’s discretion, as long as the defendant is not thereby prejudiced (see, Cyprien v New York City Tr. Auth., 243 AD2d 673; Matter of Santarpia v City of New York, 231 AD2d 726; Halali v City of New York, 213 AD2d 449). Here, the defendant would not be prejudiced by the plaintiffs proposed amendment (see, Cyprien v New York City Tr. Auth., supra). O’Brien, J. P., Altman, Friedmann, McGinity and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages [588]*588for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated March 30, 1999, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied her cross motion for leave to amend her notice of claim.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and as an exercise of discretion, with costs, the motion is denied, the complaint is reinstated, and the cross motion is granted.

General Municipal Law § 50-e (6) provides that a good faith “mistake, omission, irregularity or defect” in a notice of claim may be corrected in the court’s discretion, as long as the defendant is not thereby prejudiced (see, Cyprien v New York City Tr. Auth., 243 AD2d 673; Matter of Santarpia v City of New York, 231 AD2d 726; Halali v City of New York, 213 AD2d 449). Here, the defendant would not be prejudiced by the plaintiffs proposed amendment (see, Cyprien v New York City Tr. Auth., supra). O’Brien, J. P., Altman, Friedmann, McGinity and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 A.D.2d 587, 703 N.Y.S.2d 746, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2339, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shagabaeva-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack