Siino v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Siino v. New York City Transit Authority

248 A.D.2d 244, 671 N.Y.S.2d 216, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2562

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

DecidedMarch 17, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 248 A.D.2d 244 (Siino v. New York City Transit Authority) 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

Siino v. New York City Transit Authority, 248 A.D.2d 244, 671 N.Y.S.2d 216, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2562 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered on or about December 19, 1996, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to comply with General Municipal Law § 50-e (2) and denied plaintiff’s cross motion to amend his notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (6), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff’s motion to amend his notice of claim, made more than six years after the accident, was properly denied, defendant having established that the erroneous accident date supplied not only in the notice of claim but also at the General Municipal Law § 50-h hearing, in the bill of particulars and at the examination before trial prejudiced its investigation by preventing it from obtaining the aided report until one of its attorneys, preparing for trial, surmised the correct date from plaintiff’s medical reports (see, Centeno v City of New York, 224 AD2d 268). As it happened, the aided report indicated an accident location different from that specified in the notice of claim, compounding the prejudice. We see no reason for charg[245]*245ing defendant with knowledge of the correct date immediately upon its receipt of the medical reports when plaintiffs attorney also had the reports yet remained oblivious to the error.

Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Rubin and Tom, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered on or about December 19, 1996, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to comply with General Municipal Law § 50-e (2) and denied plaintiff’s cross motion to amend his notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (6), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff’s motion to amend his notice of claim, made more than six years after the accident, was properly denied, defendant having established that the erroneous accident date supplied not only in the notice of claim but also at the General Municipal Law § 50-h hearing, in the bill of particulars and at the examination before trial prejudiced its investigation by preventing it from obtaining the aided report until one of its attorneys, preparing for trial, surmised the correct date from plaintiff’s medical reports (see, Centeno v City of New York, 224 AD2d 268). As it happened, the aided report indicated an accident location different from that specified in the notice of claim, compounding the prejudice. We see no reason for charg[245]*245ing defendant with knowledge of the correct date immediately upon its receipt of the medical reports when plaintiffs attorney also had the reports yet remained oblivious to the error.

Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Rubin and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D.2d 244, 671 N.Y.S.2d 216, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2562, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/siino-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack