Opinion
March 17, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.).
Plaintiff's motion to amend his notice of claim, made more than six years after the accident, was properly denied, defendant having established that the erroneous accident date supplied not only in the notice of claim but also at the General Municipal Law § 50-h hearing, in the bill of particulars and at the examination before trial prejudiced its investigation by preventing it from obtaining the aided report until one of its attorneys, preparing for trial, surmised the correct date from plaintiff's medical reports ( see, Centeno v. City of New York, 224 A.D.2d 268). As it happened, the aided report indicated an accident location different from that specified in the notice of claim, compounding the prejudice. We see no reason for charging defendant with knowledge of the correct date immediately upon its receipt of the medical reports when plaintiff's attorney also had the reports yet remained oblivious to the error.
Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Rubin and Tom, JJ.