Opinion
February 11, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Myriam J. Altman, J.).
There is no merit to the fourth affirmative defense that the action is barred for failure to set forth the nature and location of the accident with sufficient specificity in the notice of claim. The information provided in the notice of claim "`was adequate to enable the defendant to locate the defect and investigate the claim'" (Basile v. City of New York, 156 A.D.2d 239, 240, quoting Bravo v. City of New York, 122 A.D.2d 761), describing, as it did, a relatively small area as the location of the accident and supplemented, as it was, by more detailed information at the statutory hearing conducted within four months of the accident (compare, Mitchell v. City of New York, 131 A.D.2d 313 [location described entire city block]). As the IAS court found, any omission or defect in the description of the location was corrected by the hearing, without prejudice to defendant (General Municipal Law § 50-e; Capo v. City of New York, 166 A.D.2d 201).
Nor is there any merit to defendant's argument that plaintiff was attempting to change the theory of liability.
Concur — Milonas, J.P., Wallach, Ross, Asch and Smith, JJ.