Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and motion granted. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred by denying plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint to add a cause of action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on the ground that plaintiff had failed to comply with the notice of claim requirements of General Municipal Law §§ 50-e and 50-i. The Supreme Court of the United States has held that notice of claim requirements do not apply to causes of action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in State courts (Felder v Casey, 487 U.S. 131; see also, Meiselman v. Richardson, 743 F. Supp. 143; Matter of Rattner v. Planning Commn., 156 A.D.2d 521, 525, lv dismissed 75 N.Y.2d 897; Matter of Zurat v. Town of Stockport, 142 A.D.2d 1, 3).
Plaintiff's claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 was not time-barred. Plaintiff's original complaint gave notice of the transactions and occurrences to be proved pursuant to the amended pleading (CPLR 203 [e]). Plaintiff sought to add only a new theory of recovery based upon the same facts alleged in his original complaint. That is permissible (see, Bilhorn v. Farlow, 60 A.D.2d 755; Luisi v. JWT Group, 128 Misc.2d 291, 295).