Opinion
13338, 114535/11.
10-28-2014
Morris Duffy Alonso & Faley, New York (Arjay G. Yao of counsel), for appellant. Levine and Wiss, PLLC, West Hempstead (Anthony A. Ferrante of counsel), for Loretta Cron, respondent. David M. Santoro, New York (Stephen T. Brewi of counsel), for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., respondent.
Morris Duffy Alonso & Faley, New York (Arjay G. Yao of counsel), for appellant.
Levine and Wiss, PLLC, West Hempstead (Anthony A. Ferrante of counsel), for Loretta Cron, respondent.
David M. Santoro, New York (Stephen T. Brewi of counsel), for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., respondent.
FRIEDMAN, J.P., RENWICK, MANZANET–DANIELS, FEINMAN, KAPNICK, JJ.
Opinion
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Donna M. Mills, J.), entered June 25, 2013, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant City's motion to dismiss the complaint and all cross claims as against it for failure to comply with the notice of claim requirement of General Municipal Law § 50–e, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The motion court properly determined that the original notice of claim, together with plaintiff's testimony at the 50–h hearing, sufficiently set forth the location of her accident to satisfy the requirements of General Municipal Law § 50–e(2), since it provided “information sufficient to enable the city to investigate” (Brown v. City of New York, 95 N.Y.2d 389, 393, 718 N.Y.S.2d 4, 740 N.E.2d 1078 [2000] ; see D'Alessandro v. New York City Tr. Auth., 83 N.Y.2d 891, 893, 613 N.Y.S.2d 849, 636 N.E.2d 1382 [1994] ). The amended notice of claim, which clarified the location of the alleged accident, was proper pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50–e(6), since the City did not demonstrate any prejudice or contend that plaintiff acted in bad faith (see Goodwin v. New York City Hous. Auth., 42 A.D.3d 63, 66, 834 N.Y.S.2d 181 [1st Dept.2007] ).