AMENDMENT OF NOTICE OF CLAIM PERMITTED BECAUSE IT ONLY ADDED “SPECIFIC FACTS”
When L.B. sought to amend a notice of claim he had filed against the City of New York, the latter opposed the motion and the New York County Supreme Court sided with the municipality.
On appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, noted that when such amendments are sought, “new theories of liability” aren’t permitted as the City would have been denied the ability to “timely investigate the claim and provide an adequate defense.”
But in this instance, rather than “new theories,” the AD1 thought L.B. was just clarifying the facts alleged in the original claim.
Specifically, L.B. initially asserted that his injuries were caused by the "negligent . . . design, maintenance, construction and installation . . ." of the "the traffic island/extra curb/bumper.” While his proposed amendment sought to add that his injuries were caused by “the ‘design, installation, and maintenance’ of the delineators and bollards which are specific elements of the traffic island.”
Because that was viewed as the addition of “specific facts,” the AD1thought the court below had erred, the underlying determination was reversed, and L.B.’s motion to amend was granted.
La Isla Bonita?
# # #
DECISION