Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996

Pollicino v. New York City Transit Authority

Pollicino v. New York City Transit Authority
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided March 25, 1996
225 A.D.2d 750; 640 N.Y.2d 168; 640 N.Y.S.2d 168; 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3229
Pollicino v. New York City Transit Authority

Opinion of the Court

*751The purpose of the statutory notice-of-claim requirement of General Municipal Law § 50-e is to provide a public corporation with an adequate opportunity to investigate the circumstances surrounding the accident and to explore the merits of the claim while information is still readily available (see, Barno v New York City Hous. Auth., 185 AD2d 292; Mazza v City of New York, 112 AD2d 921). Prompt and accurate information is especially important in cases involving a defective condition which is transitory in nature, as was alleged in this case (see, Barno v New York City Hous. Auth., supra; Fendig v City of New York, 132 AD2d 520). The plaintiff sought to amend the notice of claim to correct the date of the accident nearly four- and-one-half years after the accident. The defendant would be prejudiced by such a long delay. Thus, the Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in denying the amendment, and the complaint was properly dismissed (see, General Municipal Law § 50-e [6]; Mercado v City of New York, 208 AD2d 910; Toro v City of New York, 196 AD2d 864; Barno v New York City Hous. Auth., supra). Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Friedmann, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.