Zinnamon v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Zinnamon v. City of New York

197 A.D.2d 618, 602 N.Y.S.2d 696, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9767

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

DecidedOctober 18, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 197 A.D.2d 618 (Zinnamon 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

Zinnamon v. City of New York, 197 A.D.2d 618, 602 N.Y.S.2d 696, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9767 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated August 13, 1991, which, inter alia, denied his motion for leave to serve an amended notice of claim.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the proposed amended notice of claim is deemed served.

The plaintiff moved pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (6) for leave to serve an amended notice of claim to correct the date of the accident listed in the original notice of claim. The respondent does not claim that the error was made in bad faith, nor has the respondent demonstrated any actual prejudice, and there is no reason to presume the existence of prejudice from this record. In fact, while the respondent claims that its investigative efforts have been hampered by the incorrect date, it does not appear that any investigation has been attempted. Under the circumstances of this case, the plaintiff is granted leave to serve an amended notice of claim (see, Tucker v Long Is. R. R. Co., 128 AD2d 517). Thompson, J. P., Sullivan, Miller, Ritter and Santucci, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated August 13, 1991, which, inter alia, denied his motion for leave to serve an amended notice of claim.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the proposed amended notice of claim is deemed served.

The plaintiff moved pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (6) for leave to serve an amended notice of claim to correct the date of the accident listed in the original notice of claim. The respondent does not claim that the error was made in bad faith, nor has the respondent demonstrated any actual prejudice, and there is no reason to presume the existence of prejudice from this record. In fact, while the respondent claims that its investigative efforts have been hampered by the incorrect date, it does not appear that any investigation has been attempted. Under the circumstances of this case, the plaintiff is granted leave to serve an amended notice of claim (see, Tucker v Long Is. R. R. Co., 128 AD2d 517). Thompson, J. P., Sullivan, Miller, Ritter and Santucci, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

197 A.D.2d 618, 602 N.Y.S.2d 696, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9767, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zinnamon-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack