In Garland v City of New York, 2025 NY Slip Op 01991, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reviewed whether a lawsuit could go forward when the plaintiff gave the wrong date of the alleged injury in the required notice of claim. The case involved a person who said she was hurt while trying to get on a city bus.
Background Facts
Theresa Garland claimed that she was injured while boarding a bus. She said the fall happened on June 13, 2015. However, when she filed her notice of claim—a document that must be submitted before suing a city agency—she wrote that the injury occurred on June 9, 2015.
This notice of claim was required by General Municipal Law § 50-e(2), which says that a person must include the time, place, and manner of the incident. Later, when Garland filed the lawsuit and a supporting document called a bill of particulars, she repeated the same incorrect date of June 9, 2015.
During the discovery process, the defendants—the New York City Transit Authority, MABSTOA, MTA, and Metropolitan Transit Authority Bus Company—reviewed her medical records and found that the injury happened on June 13, 2015, not June 9.
The defendants asked the court to dismiss the case. They said the notice of claim was defective because it had the wrong date and they were not able to properly investigate. Garland responded by asking the court to allow her to amend the notice of claim to show the correct date.
Question Before the Court
The court had to decide whether the plaintiff should be allowed to change the date in her notice of claim years after the original filing. The question was whether the error caused harm to the defendants’ ability to investigate the incident and whether the correction should be allowed under General Municipal Law § 50-e(6), which lets a court permit changes to a notice if the mistake was made in good faith and the city was not harmed.
Court’s Decision
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s ruling. The court said that while the trial court made a mistake in how it reached its decision, the outcome was still correct. The appellate court said the mistake in the notice of claim did cause harm to the defendants, and so the case had to be dismissed.
Under General Municipal Law § 50-e(6), the plaintiff had the burden to show that the incorrect date did not interfere with the defendants’ ability to investigate the event. The court found that Garland did not meet this burden. The defendants found out the correct date only after reviewing her medical records during discovery, which took about three years. That delay harmed their ability to gather facts and question witnesses.
The court also noted that even though the defendants eventually identified the bus operator from the correct date, he did not remember anything about that day. Because of this, the court found that the defendants were not able to investigate the incident or talk to others who may have seen what happened.
Discussion
The court repeated that a notice of claim must be accurate enough to allow the city or agency to investigate the claim early. This rule helps cities respond quickly to claims and avoid surprises. When the notice has incorrect information, especially about when the incident occurred, it limits the ability of the city to check facts while memories are fresh and documents are available.
In this case, the plaintiff not only gave the wrong date in the original notice of claim but repeated the error in the complaint and the bill of particulars. The error lasted for several years, and the defendants had to rely on discovery to uncover the truth. The court said this delay caused real problems.
Although courts have some flexibility to allow corrections when the mistake was made in good faith, they do not have to allow the change if the other side was harmed. Here, the court said the defendants were not able to conduct a proper investigation because of the mistake.
The court also said that this case was different from others where the city could have figured out the correct date with just a little effort. In this case, the court found that the city did a reasonable job investigating but still could not learn the truth until much later.
Because the plaintiff could not show that the error had no impact on the defendants, and because it took years to discover the mistake, the court said it had no choice but to dismiss the case.
Conclusion
The court’s decision in Garland v City of New York shows how important it is to submit a correct and timely notice of claim when suing a city agency. The rules under General Municipal Law § 50-e are strict. A mistake about the date of the incident can stop a case from moving forward, especially if it limits the city’s ability to investigate.
In this case, even though the injury may have happened, the plaintiff’s repeated mistake about the date caused harm to the defendants’ ability to respond. As a result, the court dismissed the lawsuit.