
    Loretta Cron, Respondent, v City of New York, Appellant, and Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., Respondent, et al., Defendant.
    [995 NYS2d 54]
   Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Donna M. Mills, J.), entered June 25, 2013, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant City’s motion to dismiss the complaint and all cross claims as against it for failure to comply with the notice of claim requirement of General Municipal Law § 50-e, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly determined that the original notice of claim, together with plaintiff’s testimony at the 50-h hearing, sufficiently set forth the location of her accident to satisfy the requirements of General Municipal Law § 50-e (2), since it provided “information sufficient to enable the city to investigate” (Brown v City of New York, 95 NY2d 389, 393 [2000]; see D’Alessandro v New York City Tr. Auth., 83 NY2d 891, 893 [1994]). The amended notice of claim, which clarified the location of the alleged accident, was proper pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (6), since the City did not demonstrate any prejudice or contend that plaintiff acted in bad faith (see Goodwin v New York City Hous. Auth., 42 AD3d 63, 66 [1st Dept 2007]).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Renwick, ManzanetDaniels, Feinman and Kapnick, JJ.  