Carr v. City of New York

• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Writing for the Court: Before KUNZEMAN
• Citation: Carr v. City of New York, 575 N.Y.S.2d 107, 176 A.D.2d 779 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
• Decision Date: 15 October 1991
• Parties: Robert CARR, Respondent, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, Appellant.

Page 107

575 N.Y.S.2d 107

176 A.D.2d 779

Robert CARR, Respondent, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Second Department.

Oct. 15, 1991.

Victor A. Kovner, Corp. Counsel, New York City (Francis F. Caputo and Lawrence A. Salvato, of counsel), for appellant.

Katz, Katz & Bleifer, New York City (Roy A. Kuriloff, of counsel), for respondent.

Before KUNZEMAN, J.P., and SULLIVAN, ROSENBLATT and O'BRIEN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.), dated February 6, 1990, which (1) granted the plaintiff's motion to amend the notice of claim and to deem the amended notice of claim timely served nunc pro tunc, and (2) denied the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, the cross motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiff served a notice of claim upon the defendant on September 20, 1988, seeking recovery for an accident which allegedly occurred on June 25, 1988. However, on September 13, 1989, the plaintiff's counsel allegedly learned that the plaintiff's accident had in fact occurred on June 18, 1988, rather than June 25, 1988. Therefore, the notice of claim had not been timely served within 90 days after the claim arose. Counsel then served the defendant with a copy of the summons and complaint reflecting the true date of the accident immediately thereafter. However, it was not until on or about October 26, 1989, that the plaintiff moved to amend the notice of claim to correct the accident date and to deem the amended notice of claim timely served nunc pro tunc. The defendant cross-moved for summary judgment on the ground that the notice of claim was not timely served within 90 days after the claim arose as required by General Municipal Law § 50-e(1)(a), and that the plaintiff's application to have the notice of claim deemed timely served should be denied because it was not made until after the expiration of the one-year-and-90-day limitations period applicable to this action (see, General Municipal Law § 50-e[5]. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's motion to amend the notice, deemed it timely served nunc pro tunc, and denied the defendant's cross-motion. We now reverse.

While a motion to correct a notice of claim may be made at any time (see, General Municipal Law § 50-e[6] and should be granted where the error was made in good faith and there is an absence of prejudice to the municipality (see, e.g., Capo v. City of New York, 166 A.D.2d 201, 564...