Plaintiffs' failure to comply with General Municipal Law § 50-e (2), by setting forth in their notice of claim "the time when, the place where, and the manner in which the claim arose", and subsequent attempt, approximately four years later, on the eve of trial, to amend their notice of claim and pleadings to change the location of the alleged accident, and to allege a new theory of recovery, not referred to either directly or indirectly in the original notice of claim, warranted dismissal of the complaint (General Municipal Law § 50-e; Demorcy v. City of New York, 137 A.D.2d 650, 651; Gordon v. City of New York, 79 A.D.2d 981, 982).
The defect in the notice of claim prejudiced the defendants by failing to provide them with actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim and by making it impossible to conduct a meaningful investigation. (Altmayer v. City of New York, 149 A.D.2d 638; Caselli v. City of New York, 105 A.D.2d 251, 254; Nouri v. City of New York, 90 A.D.2d 745.)
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Carro, Rosenberger, Asch and Rubin, JJ.