Majority
Plaintiff stated in the notice of claim that “[o]n or about the 17th day of January 2007,” while a passenger on a bus owned and operated by defendants, which “was being operated on Fifth
In relevant part, the statute requires that a notice of claim set forth “the time when, the place where and the manner in which the claim arose” (General Municipal Law § 50-e [2]). “Reasonably read, the statute does not require those things to be stated with literal nicety or exactness” (Brown v City of New York, 95 NY2d 389 , 393 [2000] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Rather, “[t]he test of the sufficiency of a Notice of Claim is merely whether it includes information sufficient to enable the city to investigate” (id. [internal quotation marks omitted]); “[n]othing more may be required” (id. [internal quotation marks omitted]). Finally, as we recently stated, “municipal authorities have an obligation to obtain the missing information if that can be done with a modicum of effort rather than rejecting a notice of claim outright” (Goodwin v New York City Hous. Auth., 42 AD3d 63 , 69 [2007]).
Under these circumstances, the notice of claim was not insufficient due to plaintiffs inability to state whether the bus was an Ml, M2, M3 or M4 or to recall any identifying information
Cases cited
- D'Alessandro v. New York City Transit Authority 83 NY2d 891 at 893 p. 462
- Brown v. City of New York 95 NY2d 389 at 393 p. 462
- Goodwin v. New York City Housing Authority 42 AD3d 63 at 69 p. 462
- Hudson v. New York City Transit Authority 19 AD3d 648 at 649 p. 463