Opinion
February 2, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCarty, J.).
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, that branch of the cross motion which was for leave to serve an amended notice of claim is denied on the merits, and the complaint is dismissed.
The plaintiff, Susan Earle, allegedly tripped and fell on cracked pavement in the defendant's parking lot. In view of the greater particularity required in the description of the defects of this kind in notices of claim ( see, Schwartz v. City of New York, 250 N.Y. 332; Fendig v. City of New York, 132 A.D.2d 520; Levine v. City of New York, 111 A.D.2d 785; Caselli v. New York, 105 A.D.2d 251), the notice of claim, which described the place where the claim arose as "the exit way of the Municipal Parking Field designated Number LV-2 located in Locust Valley", did not sufficiently describe the accident site ( see, Santiago v. New York City Hous. Auth., 220 A.D.2d 655; Frankfort v. City of New York, 159 A.D.2d 680; Harper v. City of New York, 129 A.D.2d 770; Caselli v. City of New York, supra; Matter of Klobnock v. City of New York, 80 A.D.2d 854). Nor did the notice of claim adequately describe the manner in which the claim arose ( see, Baez v. New York City Hous. Auth., 182 A.D.2d 554; Shea v. Incorporated Vil. of Head of Harbor, 180 A.D.2d 675).
The plaintiff cross-moved, inter alia, for leave to serve an amended notice of claim. In deciding whether such leave should be granted, it must be determined whether the mistakes, omissions, irregularities or defects in the original description of the place where and the manner in which the claim arose were made in good faith and whether the defendant has been prejudiced ( see, Frankfort v. City of New York supra; Mazza v. City of New York, 112 A.D.2d 921).
Even assuming good faith on the part of the plaintiff, the failure of her original notice of claim to include an adequate description of the accident site prejudiced the defendant by preventing it from conducting a proper investigation while the facts were still fresh ( see, Walston v. City of New York, 229 A.D.2d 485; Zapata v. City of New York, 225 A.D.2d 543; Serrano v. City of New York, 143 A.D.2d 652; Eagle v. City of Yonkers, 143 A.D.2d 626). Accordingly, that branch of the cross motion which was for leave to serve an amended notice of claim must be denied ( see, Bacchus v. City of New York, 134 A.D.2d 393).
Ritter, J. P., Altman, Friedmann and Luciano, JJ., concur.