Faubert v. City of New York, 90 A.D.2d 509 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982). · Go Syfert
Search
Faubert v. City of New York, 90 A.D.2d 509 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
21 citation events (4 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 1983 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1983 2004 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Jayed v. Shuang Zhang (2×)
N.D.N.Y. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
See Faubert v. City of New York, 90 A.D.2d 509, 509 , 455 N.Y.S.2d 24 (N.Y.App.Div. 2d Dep’t 1982) (notice of claim failed to describe the accident location with sufficient particularity and plaintiff later testified that the accident occurred at an entirely different location); Caselli v. City of New York, 105 A.D.2d 251, 253-54 , 483 N.Y.S.2d 401 (N.Y.App.Div. 2d Dep’t 1984) (same).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Fendig v. City of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 1987 · signal: see also · confidence low
The Supreme Court, Queens County, did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiffs’ motion to amend their notice of claim (cf., Martire v City of New York, 129 AD2d 567 ; Matter of Malla v City of New York, 129 AD2d 580 ; see also, Faubert v City of New York, 90 AD2d 509 ).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Caselli v. City of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 1984 · signal: see also · confidence low
We have held that the statutory requirement regarding the recital of the place of occurrence is met where the notice describes the accident location with sufficient particularity to enable defendant to locate the alleged defect and to conduct a proper investigation of the site and otherwise assess the merits of plaintiff’s claim (Evers v City of New York, 90 AD2d 786 ; see, also, Faubert v City of New York, 90 AD2d 509 ; Campbell v City of New York, 78 AD2d 631 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Angela Faubert
v.
City of New York
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Oct 18, 1982.
90 A.D.2d 509
Cited by 16 opinions  |  Published

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kunzeman, J.), entered February 6,1981, which dismissed the complaint upon the granting of defendant’s cross motion to dismiss and the denial of plaintiffs’ motion to amend the notice of claim. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The notice of claim, filed pursuant to section 50-e of the General Municipal Law, failed to describe the accident location with sufficient particularity to enable defendant to conduct a proper investigation of the site and otherwise assess the merits of plaintiffs’ claim (see Campbell v City of New York, 78 AD2d 631; Moran v City of Yonkers, 282 App Div 702; Rozell v City of New York, 271 App Div 832). The notice of claim erroneously described the accident site as “the sidewalk located on Parsons Boulevard between Jewel Avenue and 65th Street”, when the actual location of the accident was on Parsons Boulevard between Jewel Avenue and 65th Avenue. Plaintiffs argue that this specific defect in the description was negligible, as a reasonable investigation would have shown that 65th Street does not intersect Parsons Boulevard, and that the description was later clarified in the verified bill of particulars. At a Comptroller’s hearing held seven months after the accident, plaintiff Angela Faubert testified that the accident occurred in front of 67-02 Parsons Boulevard between 65th Avenue and Jewel Avenue. In their motion to amend the notice of claim, plaintiffs now seek to alter the description yet a third time to indicate the accident site as the sidewalk on Parsons Boulevard between Jewel Avenue and 65th Avenue and “near 67-06 Parsons Boulevard, on the curb in front of the Pomonok Consolidated Storeroom”. In light of the significant delay in adequately particularizing the accident site and the discrepancies included in the descriptions thereof, defendant would be prejudiced by allowing the amendment to the notice of claim. Accordingly, it was not an abuse of discretion for Special Term to have denied plaintiffs’ motion to amend the[*510] notice of claim and to have granted defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint. Titone, J. P., Weinstein, Thompson and Brown, JJ., concur.