From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Singer v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 30, 1996
226 A.D.2d 325 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

April 30, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Fern Fisher-Brandveen, J.).


The IAS Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting plaintiff's motion to amend her notice of claim and complaint since the location of the accident site was sufficiently identified at the General Municipal Law § 50-h hearing, which took place approximately five months after plaintiff's accident occurred. Although plaintiff inadvertently transposed the digits of the address in question, plaintiff specified the cross streets, supplied photographs of the scene, described the area, which included a housing project, and otherwise identified the correct location. Since defendant did not explain why it had failed to produce sufficient evidence that it had conducted an extensive investigation of the wrong site in its original motion papers, the court properly denied defendant's motion for leave to renew ( Foley v. Roche, 68 A.D.2d 558).

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Milonas, Ellerin, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.


Summaries of

Singer v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 30, 1996
226 A.D.2d 325 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Singer v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:BERNICE SINGER, Respondent, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Apr 30, 1996

Citations

226 A.D.2d 325 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
642 N.Y.S.2d 227

Citing Cases

Petraroli v. City of N.Y.

Thus, between the pleadings, the transcript of the 50-h hearing, and the photographs of the accident location…

Kaminsky v. City of New York

In an attorney's affirmation, the defendant City of New York claimed it was so misled that it sent an…