Toro v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Toro v. City of New York

196 A.D.2d 864, 601 N.Y.S.2d 959

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

DecidedSeptember 27, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 196 A.D.2d 864 (Toro 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

Toro v. City of New York, 196 A.D.2d 864, 601 N.Y.S.2d 959 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinions

In a negligence 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, 1991, which denied their application pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (6) to amend their notice of claim so as to change the date upon which the infant plaintiff was allegedly injured.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs moved to amend their notice of claim so as to correct the date on which the infant plaintiff Rudolfo Toro allegedly slipped and fell down a flight of stairs. According to the original notice of claim and the complaint served, the infant plaintiff was caused to fall down a flight of steps by reason of a puddle of water surrounding debris on the landing to the staircase. As the condition complained of was extremely transitory, the purpose of General Municipal Law § 50-e, which is to allow a municipal defendant the opportunity of investigating the situs of the alleged difficulty at a time before there is any change thereto, would have been entirely frustrated had this application been granted (see, Caselli v City of New York, 105 AD2d 251). To allow amendment of the notice of claim some 23 months after the alleged occurrence so as to change the date of the accident would create unquestionable prejudice. Thompson, J. P., Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence 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, 1991, which denied their application pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (6) to amend their notice of claim so as to change the date upon which the infant plaintiff was allegedly injured.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs moved to amend their notice of claim so as to correct the date on which the infant plaintiff Rudolfo Toro allegedly slipped and fell down a flight of stairs. According to the original notice of claim and the complaint served, the infant plaintiff was caused to fall down a flight of steps by reason of a puddle of water surrounding debris on the landing to the staircase. As the condition complained of was extremely transitory, the purpose of General Municipal Law § 50-e, which is to allow a municipal defendant the opportunity of investigating the situs of the alleged difficulty at a time before there is any change thereto, would have been entirely frustrated had this application been granted (see, Caselli v City of New York, 105 AD2d 251). To allow amendment of the notice of claim some 23 months after the alleged occurrence so as to change the date of the accident would create unquestionable prejudice. Thompson, J. P., Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

196 A.D.2d 864, 601 N.Y.S.2d 959, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/toro-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack