| Roberson v New York City Hous. Auth. |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 07829 [89 AD3d 714] |
| November 1, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Jonette Roberson, Respondent, v New York City HousingAuthority, Appellant. |
—[*1] Bader, Yakaitis & Nonnenmacher, LLP, New York, N.Y. (John J. Nonnenmacher and JesseYoung of counsel), for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order ofthe Supreme Court, Kings County (Solomon, J.), dated July 8, 2010, which granted the plaintiff'smotion pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (6) for leave to amend the notice ofclaim and denied its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for failure tocomply with General Municipal Law § 50-e (2).
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion,with costs, the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the notice of claim is denied, and thedefendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.
A court may, in its discretion, grant an application for leave to amend a notice of claim wherethe mistake, omission, irregularity, or defect in the original notice was made in good faith, and itappears that the public corporation was not prejudiced thereby (see General MunicipalLaw § 50-e [6]; D'Alessandro v New York City Tr. Auth., 83 NY2d 891, 893[1994]; Canelos v City of NewYork, 37 AD3d 637, 638 [2007]; Cyprien v New York City Tr. Auth., 243AD2d 673, 674 [1997]). While there is nothing in the record to indicate that the original notice ofclaim was prepared and served in bad faith, the inconsistent and varying descriptions of thenature of the claim and manner of the accident contained in the original notice of claim, theplaintiff's testimony at the municipal hearing, the complaint, the proposed amended notice ofclaim, and the plaintiff's affidavit in support of her motion, prejudiced the defendant's ability toconduct a meaningful and timely investigation (see Bottini v City of New York, 78 AD3d 632, 633 [2010]; Parker-Cherry v New York City Hous.Auth., 62 AD3d 845, 846 [2009]).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the plaintiff's motion for leave to amendthe notice of claim and should have granted the defendant's cross motion for summary judgmentdismissing the complaint for failure to comply with General Municipal Law § 50-e (2).Rivera, J.P., Florio, Eng, Hall and Cohen, JJ., concur.