Practice point: The Appellate Division found that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its
discretion in granting the plaintiff's cross motion for leave to serve
and file an amended notice of claim. The
proposed amendments included substantive changes
to the facts, adding that the plaintiff was injured after he climbed a
ladder to go over a fence, changing the situs of the accident, and
identifying the plaintiff as a worker at the site. The proposed
amendments to the notice of claim also added a theory of liability under
the Labor Law. Such changes are not technical in nature and are not
permitted as late-filed amendments to a notice of claim under General
Municipal Law § 50-e(6). Granting leave would prejudice the defendant by
depriving it of the opportunity to promptly and meaningfully investigate
the claim.
Student note: Amendments to notices of claim are appropriate only to correct good-faith and nonprejudicial technical mistakes, defects, or omissions, not
substantive changes in the theory of liability.
Case: Ahmed v. New York City Housing Authority, NY Slip Op 04883 (2d Dept. 2014)
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow's issue: An oral agreement as to an interest in a co-op.
