Henriquez v. New York City Hous. Auth.

Summary

The Appellate Division, First Department modified an order concerning a negligence action against the New York City Housing Authority arising from smoke inhalation injuries at a NYCHA-owned building. The court granted NYCHA's motion to strike allegations in supplemental bills of particulars because they presented new theories of liability not fairly implied by the notice of claim. It otherwise affirmed the denial of plaintiff's motion to amend the notice of claim and complaint.

Holdings

1. A court may disregard the technical error in a notice of motion citing the wrong procedural provision and treat the motion under CPLR 3043(b) where the notice and supporting papers clearly identify the relief and grounds sought and the opposing party suffers no prejudice.
2. Allegations that NYCHA failed to provide fire alarms or sprinklers and violated related fire, administrative, and penal provisions were new, distinct, and independent theories of liability, not matters fairly implied by or merely amplifying the original notice of claim; those allegations were properly stricken.
3. Leave to amend was properly denied because the proposed amendments asserted new theories of liability not contained in the notice of claim, and plaintiff could not seek leave to file a late notice of claim after expiration of the one-year-and-90-day limitation period.

Questions Presented

1. Whether NYCHA's motion should be treated as a motion under CPLR 3043(b) despite the notice of motion incorrectly citing CPLR 3211.
2. Whether the supplemental allegations concerning the absence of fire alarms and sprinklers were fairly implied by the notice of claim or instead constituted new, distinct, and independent theories of liability.
3. Whether plaintiff could rely on testimony at her General Municipal Law § 50-h hearing to cure deficiencies in the notice of claim.
4. Whether plaintiff could amend the notice of claim and complaint under General Municipal Law § 50-e(6) and CPLR 3025(b) to add the new theories after expiration of the limitations period.
5. Whether plaintiff could seek leave to file a late notice of claim after expiration of the one-year-and-90-day limitation period.

Disposition

affirmed