From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Van Buren v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
May 15, 2012
95 A.D.3d 604 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)

Opinion

2012-05-15

Erving VAN BUREN, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, et al., Defendants–Appellants.

Wallace D. Gossett, Brooklyn (Jane Shufer of counsel), for appellants. Law Offices of Michael G. O'Neill, New York (Theresa B. Wade of counsel), for respondent.



Wallace D. Gossett, Brooklyn (Jane Shufer of counsel), for appellants. Law Offices of Michael G. O'Neill, New York (Theresa B. Wade of counsel), for respondent.
MAZZARELLI, J.P., CATTERSON, MOSKOWITZ, RICHTER, MANZANET–DANIELS, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mary Ann Brigantti–Hughes, J.), entered November 22, 2010, which granted plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the notice of claim and to reargue a prior order granting defendants summary judgment, and, upon reargument, denied defendants' motion for summary judgment, unanimously modified, on the law, to deny plaintiff's motion to amend his notice of claim, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The motion court erred in granting leave to amend the notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50–e(6) “since the statute only ‘authorizes the correction of good faith, nonprejudicial, technical defects or omissions, not substantive changes in the theory of liability’ ” ( Donaldson v. New York City Hous. Auth., 91 A.D.3d 550, 937 N.Y.S.2d 195 [2012], quoting Scott v. City of New York, 40 A.D.3d 408, 410, 836 N.Y.S.2d 140 [2007] ). Plaintiff's proposed amendment impermissibly sought to change the theory of liability from a slip and fall on water that had accumulated inside defendants' bus through an open vent, to add the additional causative factor of the bus driver suddenly moving the bus forward before plaintiff had exited the rear doors ( see Santana v. New York City Tr. Auth., 88 A.D.3d 539, 930 N.Y.S.2d 587 [2011];Torres v. New York City Hous. Auth., 261 A.D.2d 273, 690 N.Y.S.2d 257 [1999],lv. denied93 N.Y.2d 816, 697 N.Y.S.2d 563, 719 N.E.2d 924 [1999] ).

Nevertheless, the court properly denied summary judgment to defendants, who failed to meet their burden of demonstrating entitlement to summary judgment on plaintiff's theory of the accumulated water ( see Torres v. New York City Tr. Auth., 79 A.D.3d 553, 913 N.Y.S.2d 93 [2010] ).


Summaries of

Van Buren v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
May 15, 2012
95 A.D.3d 604 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
Case details for

Van Buren v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth.

Case Details

Full title:Erving VAN BUREN, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: May 15, 2012

Citations

95 A.D.3d 604 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
95 A.D.3d 604
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 3761

Citing Cases

Mallon v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth.

mbio v City of New York, 118 AD3d 577 [1st Dept 2014] [where blind plaintiff's notice of claim solely alleged…