
    Cesar Cruz, Appellant, v City of New York, Respondent.
    [28 NYS3d 870]
   Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Frank Ñervo, J.), entered on or about January 9, 2015, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment, and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for leave to serve an amended notice of claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly granted the motion of defendant, the City of New York, for summary judgment pursuant to Administrative Code of City of NY § 7-210, as a record search revealed that it did not own the multiple dwelling abutting the sidewalk where, according to the notice of claim and pleadings, plaintiff allegedly fell.

The court also properly denied plaintiff’s cross motion to amend the notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (6) and to amend the complaint, because “plaintiff’s inconsistency as to the location of the accident and [his] failure to move timely to correct the notice of claim prejudiced defendant [’s] . . . ability to investigate the incident while the surrounding facts were still fresh” (Matos v City of New York, 126 AD3d 570, 571 [1st Dept 2015]; Rodriguez v City of New York, 38 AD3d 268 [1st Dept 2007]). Plaintiff’s inconsistent and vague General Municipal Law § 50-h and deposition testimony failed to correct the defect.

Concur — Acosta, J.P., Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels, Kapnick and Gesmer, JJ.  