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.
Paulette WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. CITY OF WHITE PLAINS, Respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nastasi, J.), entered December 6, 2000, which granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint and denied her cross motion, inter alia, for leave to amend the notice of claim.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint, as the plaintiff failed to provide a correct description of the location of the accident in her notice of claim (see, Brown v. City of New York, 265 A.D.2d 284, 696 N.Y.S.2d 69; Caselli v. City of New York, 105 A.D.2d 251, 253, 483 N.Y.S.2d 401). Furthermore, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff's cross motion for leave to serve an amended notice of claim (see, General Municipal Law § 50-e[6]; Flanagan v. County of Westchester, 238 A.D.2d 468, 657 N.Y.S.2d 59; Zapata v. City of New York, 225 A.D.2d 543, 638 N.Y.S.2d 487). The original notice of claim gave a description of the alleged accident site which was clearly erroneous on its face. After receiving the notice of claim, the defendant noted the error and requested that the plaintiff provide a more specific description of the place where the alleged claim arose. The plaintiff did not respond to this request. Approximately 10 months later and over a year after the accident, the defendant learned of the correct location of the accident site when it moved to dismiss the complaint. Leave to amend was properly denied since the defendant would be prejudiced, as it was unable to conduct a proper investigation while the facts surrounding the incident were still fresh (see, Jones v. City of New York, 277 A.D.2d 286, 715 N.Y.S.2d 663; Bayer v. City of Long Beach, 275 A.D.2d 433, 713 N.Y.S.2d 71; Raisner v. City of New York, 272 A.D.2d 460, 707 N.Y.S.2d 498; Matter of Prevete v. City of New York, 272 A.D.2d 333, 707 N.Y.S.2d 192).
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: November 13, 2001
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)