Herron v. City of New York, 223 A.D.2d 676 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996). · Go Syfert
Search
Herron v. City of New York, 223 A.D.2d 676 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 2011 · …amendments of a substantive nature are not within the purview of general municipal law 50-e (6) ✓
15 citation events (12 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Anderson v. City of New York
N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. · 2025 · confidence medium
Moreover, any theory of liability omitted from the notice of claim may not be included in a subsequent amended complaint (Herron v City of New York, 223 AD2d 676, 676 [2d Dept 1996] [refusing to grant plaintiffs’ leave to amend their notice of claim 155791/2023 ANDERSON, LEON vs.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) 272 Sherman, LLC v. Vasquez
N.Y. City Civ. Ct. · 2004 · confidence medium
Assoc., 223 AD2d at 677.) The petition describes the premises as “all rooms, store #1, #2 and #3, in the building known as 272 Sherman Avenue.” (Petition 1i 4.) On February 18, 2004, the court heard evidence on the adequacy of this description and admitted 11 photographs of the premises, all but one of which, a photograph offered by respondent, the parties stipulated to admit, and three of which were simply enlargements of other admitted photographs.
discussed Cited "see" Betette v. County of Monroe
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
Rather, General Municipal Law § 50-e “merely authorizes the correction of good faith, nonprejudicial, technical defects or omissions, not substantive changes in the theory of liability” (Scott v City of New York, 40 AD3d 408, 410 [2007]; see Herron, 223 AD2d 676 ; Hines v City of Buffalo, 79 AD2d 218, 226 [1981]).
discussed Cited "see" BETETTE, JR., VINCENT B. v. COUNTY OF MONROE
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
Rather, General Municipal Law § 50-e “merely authorizes the correction of good faith, nonprejudicial, technical defects or omissions, not substantive changes in the theory of liability” (Scott v City of New York, 40 AD3d 408, 410 ; see Herron, 223 AD2d 676 ; Hines v City of Buffalo, 79 AD2d 218, 226 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
James Herron
v.
City of New York, and New York City Housing Authority
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jan 29, 1996.
223 A.D.2d 676
Cited by 11 opinions  |  Published

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant New York City Housing Authority appeals, as limited by its brief, (1) from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated July 28, 1994, as, upon reargument, denied the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the complaint, without prejudice to renew the motion upon proper papers and (2) from so much of an order of the same court, dated December 27, 1994, as, upon renewal, granted the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the notice of claim and the complaint.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated July 28, 1994, is dismissed since the order was superseded by the order dated December 27, 1994, made upon renewal; and it further,

Ordered that the order dated December 27, 1994, is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, and the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the notice of claim and the complaint is denied; and it is further,

Ordered that the appellant is awarded one bill of costs.

After the Statute of Limitations had expired, the plaintiffs moved for leave to amend their notice of claim and complaint to add a new theory of recovery that they had not asserted in either their original notice of claim or in their subsequently filed complaint. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiffs’ motion. We reverse.

The plaintiffs’ new theory of recovery would have substantially altered the nature of their claims. Amendments of a substantive nature are not within the purview of General Municipal Law § 50-e (6) (see, Ford v Babylon Union Free School Dist., 213 AD2d 447; Demorcy v City of New York, 137 AD2d 650; Hines v City of Buffalo, 79 AD2d 218, 225; Colena v City of New York, 68 AD2d 898). Under these circumstances, the plaintiffs’ motion should have been denied. Thompson, J. P., Friedmann, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.