Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Jesus NIEVES, etc., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants-Respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Douglas McKeon, J.), entered September 29, 1997, which, inter alia, granted defendants' cross motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint for failure to comply with General Municipal Law § 50-e(2) and denied plaintiffs' cross motion to amend their notice of claim and summons and complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The IAS court properly denied plaintiffs' cross motion to amend their notice of claim and complaint to reflect the proper location of the public school in which the infant plaintiff was assaulted, since the defect in the original notice caused defendants to conduct an investigation at the wrong site (see, Konsker v. City of New York, 172 A.D.2d 361, 568 N.Y.S.2d 620, lv. denied 78 N.Y.2d 858, 575 N.Y.S.2d 454, 580 N.E.2d 1057). Plaintiffs' claims of difficulty with English and confusion over the number of the school do not excuse their failure to move to amend their notice of claim more expeditiously, particularly since plaintiffs' counsel had notice that the infant plaintiff may not have attended the school designated in the original notice of claim as the site of the assault (see, Rivera v. New York City Hous. Auth., 235 A.D.2d 296, 652 N.Y.S.2d 287). Finally, defendants did not, notwithstanding the defective notice of claim, have actual knowledge of the event complained of within a reasonable time, since there is no evidence that an accident report was ever prepared, and plaintiffs failed to identify the school officials who allegedly reported the incident to the infant plaintiff's mother.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
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.
Decided: June 03, 1999
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)