MONTGOMERY v. Ezena E. Lester, et al., Defendants. (1998)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

James MONTGOMERY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MANHATTAN AND BRONX SURFACE TRANSIT OPERATING AUTHORITY, et al., Defendants-Respondents, Ezena E. Lester, et al., Defendants.

Decided: October 15, 1998

Before SULLIVAN, J.P., and WALLACH, WILLIAMS and SAXE, JJ.

Laurence S. Warshaw, for Plaintiff-Appellant. Lawrence Heisler, for Defendants-Respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Douglas McKeon, J.), entered June 27, 1997, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by appellant's brief, denied plaintiff's cross motion to amend his notice of claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the motion court that plaintiff's proposed amendment to his notice of claim to indicate that the bus with which he collided was moving, and not standing still as he had previously claimed in his bill of particulars, deposition, and comptroller's hearing testimony, would prejudice defendants (see, Brown v. New York City Trans. Auth., 172 A.D.2d 178, 568 N.Y.S.2d 54). The proposed amendment is particularly prejudicial because discovery has been completed and plaintiff's previous version was consistent with that of the driver of the bus involved in the accident.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network