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.