Simms v. City of New York

207 A.D.2d 480, 616 N.Y.S.2d 239, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8431
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedAugust 22, 1994
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 207 A.D.2d 480 (Simms 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
Simms v. City of New York, 207 A.D.2d 480, 616 N.Y.S.2d 239, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8431 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated March 25, 1992, which denied their motion to amend their notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (6).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (6), the court, in its discretion, may permit a party to amend its notice of claim to correct a mistake, provided that the other party is not prejudiced thereby. In the case at bar, the plaintiffs’ original notice of claim, served in April of 1989, contained incorrect information regarding, inter alia, the location of the accident. More than a year later, the plaintiffs sought to amend their notice of claim so as to correct the erroneous information set forth in the original notice of claim.

In view of the lengthy delay in seeking amendment, we find that the defendant has been manifestly prejudiced since it has been deprived of the opportunity to timely and effectively investigate the circumstances of the accident (see, Charles v New York City Tr. Auth., 205 AD2d 488; Caselli v City of New York, 105 AD2d 251, 253). Accordingly, the Supreme Court did not improperly exercise its discretion in denying the plaintiffs’ application to amend their notice of claim (see, General Municipal Law § 50-e [6]). Lawrence, J. P., Santucci, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Cavanagh v. Monticello Central School District
241 A.D.2d 654 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Archon v. City of New York
239 A.D.2d 371 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Flanagan v. County of Westchester
238 A.D.2d 468 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
De Los Santos v. New York City Housing Authority
214 A.D.2d 532 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
Mercado v. City of New York
208 A.D.2d 910 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
207 A.D.2d 480, 616 N.Y.S.2d 239, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8431, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/simms-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1994.