ROSE GREEN, plf-ap, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, def-res

10013. ROSE GREEN, plf-ap, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, def-res — Law Offices of William Pager, Brooklyn (William Pager of counsel), for ap — Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Diana Lawless of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Arthur F. Engoron, J.), entered March 19, 2012, which granted defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

10013. ROSE GREEN, plf-ap, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, def-res — Law Offices of William Pager, Brooklyn (William Pager of counsel), for ap — Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Diana Lawless of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Arthur F. Engoron, J.), entered March 19, 2012, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied.

In this trip and fall action, plaintiff’s notice of claim listed the wrong street address (390 Central Park West rather than 360 Central Park West) in describing the location of her fall on a sidewalk, adjacent to Central Park, and across the street from that address. However, plaintiff also annexed a photograph to the notice of claim which depicted the intersection of Central Park West and 96th Street, which is nearly four blocks south of the incorrect address provided in the notice of claim, and the written description of the location in the notice was consistent with the area depicted in the photograph. Moreover, at the statutory hearing held six weeks after the notice was served, and three and a half months after the accident, plaintiff explicitly testified that her accident occurred on the sidewalk just a few car lengths south of the 96th Street intersection, and identified the location in the photograph as also shown. We also note that less than five months after the hearing, plaintiff served the summons and complaint, providing the proper street address. Under these circumstances, we find that the mistake in the notice was not made in bad faith, nor was it intended to mislead or confuse the City, and hence, it should have been disregarded or plaintiff should have been allowed to correct the notice pursuant to GML §50-e(6) (see e.g. Portillo v. New York City Tr. Auth., 84 AD3d 535, 536 [1st Dept 2011]; Phillipps v. New York City Tr. Auth., 68 AD3d 461, 462 [1st Dept 2009]).

ROSE GREEN, plf-ap, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, def-res

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal