Gazzaley v City of New York

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Gazzaley v City of New York 2012 NY Slip Op 30402(U) February 17, 2012 Sup Ct, NY County Docket Number: 108295/07 Judge: Barbara Jaffe Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service. Search E-Courts (http://www.nycourts.gov/ecourts) for any additional information on this case. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. ANNED ON 212312012 [* 1] SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK - NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: BARBARA JAFFE .. , . Tllc-t G PART -J3"stice MOTION DATE - v - o2 MOTION SEQ. NO. / The followlng papers, numbered 1 to MOTION CAL. NO. 3 were read on thls motlon toifor A,-& 7 PAPEPS NUMBERED Notice of Motlonl Order to Show Cause - Affldavlts - Exhlblts Answering Affldavlts - Exhlblts \ 2 3 Replylng Affldavlts Cross-Motion: ... 0 Yes Upon the foregoing papers, It la ordered that thls motion MEW Y ORK Dated: J&C . 0 FINAL DISPOSITION A N - F I N A L DISPOSITION Check if appropriate: 0 DO NOT POST [7 REFERENCE u SETTLE ORDER/ JUDG. 0 SUBMIT ORDER/ JUDG. Check one: [* 2] Index No. Argued: Motion Seq. No.: Plaintiff, -against- 108295/07 11/15/11 003 DECISION AND ORDER THE CITY OF NEW YORK, EMIGER REALTY ASSOCIATION, LLC and BELLA CUCINA, INC., FILED For Clty: For plaintiff: Stanley Schechter, Esq. Joseph Dubowksi, Esq. 247-30 Northern Boulveard Douglaston, NY 1 1363 718-423-3600 NEW YORK COIJNTY CLERKS OFFICE Margaret Kcrr-Meyering, ACC Michael A. Cardozo Corporation Counsel 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 2 12-788-0582 By order to show cause dated October 20 1, plaintiff moves pursuant to General Municipal Law (GML) 6 50-e(6) and CPLR 302501) for an order granting him leave to amend the caption and his notice of claim, complaint, and bill of particulars. Defendant City opposes only as to his notice of claim. L BACKGROUND On May 10,2006, plaintiff tripped on a curb on the north side of East 87* Street, 12 feet east of its intersection with Lexington Avenue and adjacent to 1293 Lexington Avenue, in Manhattan. (Afirmation of Stanley Schechter, Esq., dated Oct. 4,201 1 [Schechter Aff.], Exh. A). A Lenox Hill Hospital ambulance call report pertaining to the accident lists East 87* Street and Lexington Avenue as the accident site. (Id., Exh. K). On July 13,2006, plaintiff served City with a notice of claim. (Id.), In paragraph one, [* 3] plaintiff relates that his accident occurred at the sidewalk and curb adjacent to East 87* Street, south of 1243 Lexington Avenue, approximately 12 feet east of the east side of Lexington Avenue at the curb and just north of the curb on the north side of East 87thStreet. ( I d ) . In paragraph three, he describes the location but omits Lexington before Avenue, and he annexed portions of the Big Apple Map not including 1243 Lexington Avenue. (Id.). At a GML 5 50-h hearing held on September 19,2006, petitioner testified that his accident occurred at the northeast corner of 87* Street and Lexington Avenue. (Id., Exh. B). On or about June 14,2007, plaintiff served defendants w t a summons and verified ih complaint, asserting negligence claims arising from their ownership, control, and maintenance of the subject sidewalk and curb. (Id.).In paragraph nine, he describes his accident as follows: [while the plaintiff was lawfully and properly crossing, in a designated crosswalk, East 87* Street from the south side of the [nlorth side of the easterly side of Lexington Avenue . . . . 7, (Id.). In paragraph 11, he identifies defendant Emiger Realty Association, LLC (Emiger) as the owner of 1243 Lexington Avenue. (Id.). Sometime thereafter, plaintiff served City with an amended bill of particulars in which he identifies 1243 Lexington Avenue as the adjacent premises. (Id). On or about April 8,2009, plaintiff provided City with photographs of the accident location. ( I d , Exh. I). One of the photographs depicts Bella Cucina s awning, on which 1293 is written. (Id.). At an examination before trial (EBT) held on April 15,2009, plaintiff again testified that his accident occurred on the northeast corner of East 87thStreet and Lexington Avenue, (Id., Exh. J 9 2 [* 4] Sometime before November 30,2009, defendants Emiger and Bella Cucina, Inc. successfully moved for summary judgment. (Id., Exh. C). On or about May 5,2010, plaintiff served City with an expert report identifying the [n]orth[e]ast [clorner of Lexington Avenue and 871h Street as [tlhe area of concern. (Id., Exh. J>. On or about October 14,2011, plaintiff served City wt the instant order to show cause, ih annexing thereto, inter alia, an mended notice of claim reflecting the abutting premises correct ~ address and including Lexington before Avenue in paragraph three, an amended complaint reflecting the abutting premises correct address and replacing from the south side of the [nlorth I I side in paragraph nine with from the south side to the [nlorth side, and an amended bill of particulars reflecting the correct address. (Id,,Exhs. L, M, N). On October 27,20 11, City served plaintiff with its opposition papers, annexing thereto print-outs dated July 3 1,2006 from the Geosupport Online Address Translator and the New York City Division of Finance online database pertaining to 1243 Lexington Avenue and 145 East 84tb Street, respectively. (Affirmation of Margaret Ken-Meyering, ACC, in Opposition, dated Oct. 26,201 1 pen-Meyering Opp. Aff.], Exh. A) II. CONTENTIONS Plaintiff asserts that his proposed amendments will not prejudice City, as he consistently identified the location of his accident such that City could investigate his claim notwithstanding the typographical error as to the abutting premises address. (Schechter Aff,). He also asks that Emiger and Bella Cucina be removed from the caption to avoid juror confusion. (Id.). City concedes that there is no evidence of bad faith on the part of plaintiff but argues that 3 [* 5] it has been prejudiced by the error in his notice of claim, as the July 3 1 print-outs reflect that the New York City Comptroller s Office investigated his accident as though it had occurred adjacent to 1243 Lexington Avenue by searching for the address of that record owner. (Kerr-Meyering Opp. Aff.). It also denies that plaintiffs error w s cured by his photographs of the accident site, a his description of same in his pleadings and during his GML 6 50-h hearing and EBT, or the ambulance call report. (Id.), In reply, plaintiff contends that City has failed to demonstrate prejudice, as the print-outs are insufficient evidence of an investigation, and that the photographs and his repeated identification of the accident site cured his error as to the abutting premises address. (Affirmation of Stanley Schechter, Esq., in Reply, dated Nov. 12,2011). III. ANALYSIS A. Notice of claim Pursuant to GML $5 50-e(l)(a) and 504, a tort action against a municipality must be commenced by service of a notice of claim upon the municipality within 90 days of the date on which the claim arose. The purpose of the notice of claim is to give a municipal authority the Dept opportunity to investigate ( G o o h i n v New York City Hous. Auth., 42 AD3d 63,67 [lSt 2007]), and a notice of claim is sufficient if it includes information that enables a municipal agency to investigate and evaluate the merits of a claim (Bennett v New York City Tr. Auth., 4 AD3d 265,266 [lgt Dept 20041, afld 3 NY3d 745 [2004]). Pursuant to GML 5 50-e(6): [a]t any time after the service of a notice of claim and at any stage of an action or special proceeding to which the provisions of this section are applicable, a mistake, omission, irregularity or defect made in good faith in the notice of claim required to be served by 4 [* 6] this section not pertaining to the manner or time of service thereof, may be corrected, supplied or disregarded, as the case may be, in the discretion of the court, provided it shall appear that the other party was not prejudiced thereby. As prejudice is not presumed from an error in a notice of claim, the municipality must establish same. ( G o o h i n , 42 AD3d at 68; Williams v C & ofNew York, 229 AD2d 114, 117 [lst i Dept 19971). Here, plaintiff provided a detailed description of the accident location in his notice of claim, complaint, and bill of particulars, specifying the distance between the corner of the intersection and the section of curb on which he tripped, and the portions of the Big Apple Map annexed to his notice of claim are consistent with this description. Moreover, his EBT and 50-h testimony, the ambulance call report, and the expert report refer to this intersection as the accident location, and the photographs plaintiff provided to City show the correct address. As all of the evidence provided to City reflects that plaintiff tripped at the same intersection he described in his notice of claim and notwithstanding his error as to the address of the abutting premises, City could have, with very little effort, ascertained the existence of a typographical error and investigated the correct location. (See Kaminsky v City ofNew York, 238 AD2d 380 [2d Dept 19971 [where plaintiff misidentified address but gave exact location of the accident site with measurements . . . and provided a photograph of the scene, no prejudice to defendant, as Singer v City ofNew York, 226 inclusion of the reference to a street address was superfluo~~ ]; AD2d 325 [ lSt Dept 19961 [defendant not prejudiced where plaintiff inadvertently transposed digits of address in question and otherwise identified correct location, testifying to same at GML 5 50-h hearing five months after accident, specifying cross-streets, and providing to defendant]). 5 photographs, [* 7] As the July 3 1,2006 print-outs reflect only that someone searched for 1243 Lexington Avenue in the online databases and provide no indication as to the details of City s investigation, they are insufficient to demonstrate that it investigated the wrong accident location. (See Kuminsb, 238 AD2d 380 [attorney s affirmation providing that City sent investigator to wrong site insufficient to demonstrate prejudice absent affidavit from an investigator who actually visited the site ]; see also Seraita v City of Yonkers, 292 AD2d 456 [2d Dept 20021 [investigator s affidavit insufficient to demonstrate prejudice, as he failed to detail his efforts to ascertain accident location therein]). Absent any allegation of bad faith on the part of plaintiff, he is entitled to leave to amend his notice of claim. B. Caption. C Q ~ & Pursuant to CPLR 3025(b), a party may amend its pleadings at any time by leave of cow, which shall be freely given upon such terms as may be just. . , , It is well-settled that leave to amend pleadings under this section should be liberally granted unless the amendment plainly lacks merit or would prejudice or surprise the other parties. (MBIA Ins. Corp. v Greystone & Co., 74 AD3d 499,499 [l Dept 20101). As plaintiffs proposed amendments are neither patently meritless nor prejudicial to City (see supra, nI.A.), he is entitled to leave to amend the caption, his complaint, and his bill of particulars. Iv*coNCLUSION Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED, that plaintiffs motion to amend his notice of claim, complaint, and bill of 6 .- .. . . . .. . . . . . [* 8] particulars is granted, and the amended notice of claim, amended complaint, and amended bill of particulars annexed to his order to show cause are deemed served upon plaintiffs service of a copy of this order with notice of entry; and it is further ORDERED, that plaintiffs motion to amend the caption by removing defendants E d g e r Realty Association, LLC and Bella Cucina, Inc. is granted; and it is further ORDERED, that plaintiff shall serve a copy of this order with notice of entry upon the County Clerk (60 Centre Street, Room 141B) and upon the Clerk of the Trial Support Office (60 Centre Street, Room 158), who are directed to mark the court's records to reflect the change in FILED caption herein. FEB 2 3 2012 ENTER: NEW YORK CLERKS OFFICE DATED: February 17,2012 New York, New York ,FEE 1 J.S.C ? 2012 7

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.