Dillard v. City of New York
| Decision Date | 22 February 1979 |
| Citation | 67 A.D.2d 878,413 N.Y.S.2d 682 |
| Parties | Rosa Lee DILLARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
B. Meyerson, Brooklyn, for plaintiff-appellant.
L. K. Sheridan, New York City, for defendant-respondent.
Before KUPFERMAN, J. P., and BIRNS, SANDLER, LANE and SILVERMAN, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered May 9, 1978, denying plaintiff's motion pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e to amend notice of claim and complaint, unanimously reversed on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, to grant the motion to amend, without costs or disbursements.
The plaintiff contends that while walking on Lenox Avenue at 135th Street in Manhattan, she was struck by a sign which fell from a nearby premises. A timely notice of claim was filed stating that the object that fell came from 505 Lenox Avenue. Within three months thereafter, a hearing was conducted by the office of the Comptroller of the City of New York, at which it was made clear that the plaintiff was walking on 135th Street. 505 Lenox Avenue does not front on 135th Street, but 503 Lenox Avenue does. The plaintiff therefore argues that the defendant was in possession of information with respect to the correct location if not the correct address. Some three months later, the Borough Superintendent of Manhattan for the Department of Buildings forwarded to the Comptroller a report that the premises at 505 Lenox Avenue had been inspected, and there was no evidence of anything falling, nor were there any pending violations in the records of the Department of Buildings.
Some sixteen months after the accident, plaintiff sought to amend her notice of claim to specify that it was 503 Lenox Avenue and not 505 Lenox Avenue. The motion was denied on the ground that it was "not sufficiently shown that the error and passage of time have not worked to the defendant's prejudice."
We deem the address, in the context of this situation, an immaterial variation, and it has not been shown that the failure to be exact has prejudiced the City.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Caselli v. City of New York
...City of New York, 95 A.D.2d 790, 463 N.Y.S.2d 851, supra; Mayer v. DuPont Assoc., 80 A.D.2d 799, 437 N.Y.S.2d 94; Dillard v. City of New York, 67 A.D.2d 878, 413 N.Y.S.2d 682). To the contrary, plaintiff's testimony materially contradicted her notice of claim and only served to obscure the ......
-
Lomax v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corp.
...deficient (Lord v. New York City Hous. Auth., 184 A.D.2d 406, 407-408, 585 N.Y.S.2d 49). For instance, in Dillard v. City of New York, 67 A.D.2d 878, 413 N.Y.S.2d 682, the Notice of Claim alleged that plaintiff was injured when a street sign fell on her from 505 Lenox Avenue, but at the 50-......
-
Maiello v. City of New York
...of the plaintiff to have more specifically set forth the location of the defect has prejudiced the defendant. Dillard v. City of New York, 67 A.D.2d 878, 879, 413 N.Y.S.2d 682. See also, Mahoney v. Town of Oyster Bay, 71 A.D.2d 879, 419 N.Y.S.2d 652; Sanchez v. City of New York, 25 A.D.2d 7......
-
Mayer v. DuPont Associates, Inc.
...corrected in the court's discretion provided the other party is not prejudiced. (General Municipal Law, § 50-e(6); Dillard v. City of New York, 67 A.D.2d 878, 413 N.Y.S.2d 682; Sanchez v. City of New York, 25 A.D.2d 731, 268 N.Y.S.2d The two separate actions, one commenced against the abutt......