Case Name: Kari R. et al., Respondents, v. New York City Housing Authority, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2014-11-25
Citations: 122 A.D.3d 526
Docket Number: 
Parties: Kari R. et al., Respondents, v New York City Housing Authority, Appellant.
Judges: Concur — Gonzalez, EJ., Mazzarelli, ManzanetDaniels, Gische and Clark, JJ.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 122
Pages: 526–527

Head Matter:
Kari R. et al., Respondents, v New York City Housing Authority, Appellant.
[997 NYS2d 389]

Opinion:
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Sharon A.M. Aarons, J.), entered March 28, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant's motion to strike what it contended was plaintiffs' new theory of liability and the proffered testimony of plaintiffs' expert at trial, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
In this action arising from the infant plaintiffs slip and fall in a puddle of urine that defendant, through its agents, left sit ting for days on the landing of the staircase immediately outside plaintiffs' apartment, the motion court correctly determined that plaintiffs' expert testimony was a mere amplification of plaintiffs' consistently pleaded negligence claims, and not a new claim or theory that plaintiffs had failed to specify in their notice of claim (see Portillo v New York City Tr. Auth., 84 AD3d 535, 536 [1st Dept 2011]).
We have considered the remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
Concur — Gonzalez, EJ., Mazzarelli, ManzanetDaniels, Gische and Clark, JJ.