Opinion
2002-03944
Submitted January 31, 2003.
February 24, 2003.
In a proceeding pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e, the petitioners appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), entered April 4, 2002, which denied their motion for leave to amend notices of claim.
Wohlberg Wohlberg, P.C., Brooklyn, N.Y. (Alan J. Wohlberg of counsel), for appellants.
Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Mordecai Newman of counsel; Eyal Eisig on the brief), for respondent City of New York.
Before: GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, J.P., ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, STEPHEN G. CRANE, REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the facts and as a matter of discretion, with costs, the motion is granted, and the petitioners' amended notices of claim will be deemed served upon service on the respondents of a copy of this decision and order.
The petitioners moved by order to show cause pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e(6) for leave to serve amended notices of claim upon the respondents in order to correct the date of the accident stated in their original notices of claim. The date contained a typographical error of one year earlier. The error was not made in bad faith. Furthermore, the respondents have not demonstrated any actual prejudice, and there is no reason to presume the existence of prejudice from this record. Accordingly, under the facts of this case, the petitioners' motion should have been granted (see Formanek v. New York City Hous. Auth., 197 A.D.2d 664; Zinnamon v. City of New York, 197 A.D.2d 618; Tucker v. Long Is. R. R., Co., 128 A.D.2d 517).
KRAUSMAN, J.P., SCHMIDT, CRANE and RIVERA, JJ., concur.