Reset A A Font size: Print

KARI R., etc., et al., Plaintiffs–Respondents, v. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, Defendant–Appellant.

Decided: November 25, 2014

GONZALEZ, P.J., MAZZARELLI, MANZANET–DANIELS, GISCHE, CLARK, JJ. Herzfeld & Rubin, P.C., New York (Sharyn Rootenberg of counsel), for appellant. Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & DeCicco, New York (Brian J. Isaac of counsel), for respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Sharon A.M. Aarons, J.), entered March 28, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant's motion to strike what it contended was plaintiffs' new theory of liability and the proffered testimony of plaintiffs' expert at trial, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this action arising from the infant plaintiff's slip and fall in a puddle of urine that defendant, through its agents, left sitting for days on the landing of the staircase immediately outside plaintiffs' apartment, the motion court correctly determined that plaintiffs' expert testimony was a mere amplification of plaintiffs' consistently pleaded negligence claims, and not a new claim or theory that plaintiffs had failed to specify in their notice of claim (see Portillo v. New York City Tr. Auth., 84 AD3d 535, 536 [1st Dept 2011] ).

We have considered the remaining arguments and find them unavailing.