Plaintiffs neglected to include the derivative claim for loss of consortium and loss of services in their original notice of claim, but did include such causes of action in their complaint. Thus, the court properly allowed plaintiffs to amend the notice of claim to include the derivative claims inadvertently omitted from the original notice. Defendant suffered no prejudice, since it received actual notice of the claim in plaintiffs' complaint (see, General Municipal Law § 50-[6]; Burgarella v. City of New York, 265 A.D.2d 361; Dodd v. Warren, 110 A.D.2d 807). This Court's holding in Watson v. New York City Tr. Auth. ( 269 A.D.2d 162) is not to the contrary, since the plaintiff therein deliberately omitted the derivative claim of loss of consortium from the complaint, and he never moved to amend the notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.