Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court, Queens County, did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiffs' motion to amend their notice of claim (cf., Martire v. City of New York, 129 A.D.2d 567; Matter of Malla v. City of New York, 129 A.D.2d 580; see also, Faubert v City of New York, 90 A.D.2d 509).
The timely notice of claim was concededly in error in designating the intersecting streets nearest to the defect within a municipal parking lot. The balance of the notice was insufficient to permit the defendant to conduct a meaningful investigation and therefore did not comply with the requirements of General Municipal Law § 50-e (2). Claims of sidewalk defects must be set forth with greater specificity because of their transitory nature (see, Caselli v. City of New York, 105 A.D.2d 251, 253) than cases involving defects that would not change over time (cf., Evers v. City of New York, 90 A.D.2d 786).
Sixteen months passed between the accident and the motion to amend the location's description. The plaintiffs made no effort to show by acceptable proof that the condition of the defect remained the same (Mazza v. City of New York, 112 A.D.2d 921). Thus, the defendant would have been prejudiced had the amendment been permitted (General Municipal Law § 50-e). Brown, J.P., Eiber, Kunzeman and Sullivan, JJ., concur.