AMES v. CITY

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff's notice of claim did not comply with General Municipal Law § 50-e(2), as it failed to identify the location of the accident with sufficient particularity to enable the defendant to locate the alleged defect and conduct a meaningful investigation (see, Bayer v. City of Long Beach, 275 A.D.2d 433; Berfas v. Town of Oyster Bay, 274 A.D.2d 490; Wai Man Hui v. Town of Oyster Bay, 267 A.D.2d 233). The notice of claim alleged that the plaintiff fell due to a defect at "South Road, between Waltham and Sutphin Boulevard" in Queens. Since the plaintiff failed to respond to the defendant's request for supplemental claim information and did not move to amend her notice of claim and her complaint for over two years after the accident, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see, Wai Man Hui v. Town of Oyster Bay, supra; Romuleus v. City of New York, 200 A.D.2d 387).

Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the defendant's failure to allege a lack of compliance with General Municipal Law § 50-e in its answer did not constitute a waiver (see, Cappadonna v. New York City Tr. Auth., 187 A.D.2d 691; Nicholas v. City of New York, 130 A.D.2d 470).