We reject defendants' contention on their cross-appeal that the court erred in denying their motion with respect to plaintiff's first and fourth causes of action and part of the third cause of action. Those causes of action were premised on theories of common-law negligence and gross negligence, which were sufficiently stated in the original notice of claim (see generally Root v Salamanca Cent. Sch. Dist., 192 A.D.3d 1526, 1527 [4th Dept 2021]). We agree with defendants, however, that the court erred in denying that part of their motion with respect to plaintiff's fifth cause of action.

As is relevant here, "[t]he elements of a cause of action for false arrest or imprisonment are (1) an intentional confinement (2) of which plaintiff was conscious and (3) to which plaintiff did not consent, and (4) that was not otherwise privileged" ( Guntlow v. Barbera, 76 A.D.3d 760, 762, 907 N.Y.S.2d 86 [3d Dept. 2010], appeal dismissed 15 N.Y.3d 906, 912 N.Y.S.2d 572, 938 N.E.2d 1007 [2010] ; seeMartinez v. City of Schenectady, 97 N.Y.2d 78, 85, 735 N.Y.S.2d 868, 761 N.E.2d 560 [2001] ). Here, a close examination of the record reveals that the notice of claim does not contain any allegations, either direct or indirect, which would put defendants on notice regarding a claim of false arrest or imprisonment, as was later raised in plaintiff's bill of particulars (see generallyWashington v. City of New York, 190 A.D.3d 1009, 1011, 141 N.Y.S.3d 62 [2d Dept. 2021] ; O'Dell v. County of Livingston, 174 A.D.3d 1307, 1308–1309, 103 N.Y.S.3d 730 [4th Dept. 2019] ; compareRoot v. Salamanca Cent. Sch. Dist., 192 A.D.3d 1526, 1528, 145 N.Y.S.3d 691 [4th Dept. 2021] ). Thus, Supreme Court properly declined to consider plaintiff's claims of false arrest and false imprisonment.