From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Williams v. City of White Plains

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 13, 2001
288 A.D.2d 307 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

Submitted October 17, 2001.

November 13, 2001.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nastasi, J.), entered December 6, 2000, which granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint and denied her cross motion, inter alia, for leave to amend the notice of claim.

Jacoby Meyers, LLP (Finkelstein Partners, Newburgh, N Y [Andrew L. Spitz] of counsel), for appellant.

Joseph A. Maria, P.C., White Plains, N.Y., for respondent.

Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint, as the plaintiff failed to provide a correct description of the location of the accident in her notice of claim (see, Brown v. City of New York, 265 A.D.2d 284; Caselli v. City of New York, 105 A.D.2d 251, 253). Furthermore, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff's cross motion for leave to serve an amended notice of claim (see, General Municipal Law — 50-e[6]; Flanagan v. County of Westchester, 238 A.D.2d 468; Zapata v. City of New York, 225 A.D.2d 543). The original notice of claim gave a description of the alleged accident site which was clearly erroneous on its face. After receiving the notice of claim, the defendant noted the error and requested that the plaintiff provide a more specific description of the place where the alleged claim arose. The plaintiff did not respond to this request. Approximately 10 months later and over a year after the accident, the defendant learned of the correct location of the accident site when it moved to dismiss the complaint. Leave to amend was properly denied since the defendant would be prejudiced, as it was unable to conduct a proper investigation while the facts surrounding the incident were still fresh (see, Jones v. City of New York, 277 A.D.2d 286; Bayer v. City of Long Beach, 275 A.D.2d 433; Raisner v. City of New York, 272 A.D.2d 460; Matter of Prevete v. City of New York, 272 A.D.2d 333).

RITTER, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, FRIEDMANN, FEUERSTEIN and CRANE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Williams v. City of White Plains

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 13, 2001
288 A.D.2d 307 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

Williams v. City of White Plains

Case Details

Full title:PAULETTE WILLIAMS, appellant, v. CITY OF WHITE PLAINS, respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Nov 13, 2001

Citations

288 A.D.2d 307 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
733 N.Y.S.2d 119

Citing Cases

Siegel v. City of New York

Furthermore, the plaintiffs did not seek leave to amend until over two years after the accident. Under the…

Sarkissian v. City of New York

Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff's cross motion for leave to serve an…