D’Alessandro v. New York City Tr. Auth. 83 N.Y.2d 390 (1994)
A notice of claim against a municipality is sufficient if it includes information that allows the city to investigate the claim, and literal nicety or exactness is not required.
Summary
Plaintiff sued New York City for injuries sustained from a fall on a defective sidewalk. The city argued the Notice of Claim was deficient because it described the defect as being on both the sidewalk and curb, while at trial, the plaintiff claimed the injury was caused solely by a defective sidewalk. The Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of the complaint, holding that the Notice of Claim was sufficient because it identified the accident site with particularity and put the city on notice that the adjacent sidewalk was also a cause of the injuries, enabling a timely investigation. The court emphasized that the purpose of a Notice of Claim is to enable the city to investigate, not to achieve exact precision.
Facts
Plaintiff fell on a Brooklyn sidewalk, allegedly due to a broken and defective portion of the sidewalk and curb. The Notice of Claim stated the accident occurred on West 33rd Street, approximately 65 feet and 7 inches south of the southwest corner of Mermaid Avenue, and included precise measurements of the defect’s location and size. Three photographs, each circling the curb and including a portion of the sidewalk, accompanied the Notice of Claim. The Notice repeatedly referred to a “defective sidewalk.” At a hearing and deposition, plaintiff testified that he fell after stepping on a broken sidewalk and never reached the curb.
Procedural History
Plaintiff sued the City, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, specifically finding that he had fallen on the sidewalk. The City moved to set aside the verdict, arguing the Notice of Claim was defective. The trial court initially agreed with the City, but the Appellate Division affirmed solely on the ground that the Notice of Claim was deficient. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding the notice adequate and remitting the case to the Appellate Division to consider other issues.
Issue(s)
Whether a Notice of Claim against a municipality is sufficient when it describes the accident location as a “defective sidewalk and curb,” but the plaintiff’s trial evidence focuses solely on a defective sidewalk.
Holding
Yes, because the test of sufficiency of a Notice of Claim is merely “whether it includes information sufficient to enable the city to investigate.”
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reasoned that General Municipal Law § 50-e does not require literal exactness in the Notice of Claim. The key consideration is whether the notice allows the municipality to locate the place, fix the time, and understand the nature of the accident. Here, the court emphasized that plaintiff’s Notice identified the accident site with particularity, including precise measurements and photographs. Although the photographs circled the curb, the Notice repeatedly mentioned a “defective sidewalk,” putting the City on notice that the sidewalk was a contributing factor. The court distinguished this case from others where the Notice of Claim was materially misleading or inaccurate, preventing the municipality from conducting a proper investigation. The court stated, “Reasonably read, the statute does not require ‘those things to be stated with literal nicety or exactness’ (Purdy v City of New York, supra, 193 NY, at 523; see also, Schwartz v City of New York, 250 NY 332, 335). The test of the sufficiency of a Notice of Claim is merely ‘whether it includes information sufficient to enable the city to investigate’ (see, O’Brien v City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d 353, 358). ‘Nothing more may be required’ (Schwartz v City of New York, supra, 250 NY, at 335).” The court concluded that the purpose of the Notice of Claim – to enable the City to promptly investigate the alleged accident – was satisfied in this case.