In determining whether to grant the motion to dismiss the complaint, how have courts considered the "four corners" of the notice of claim?

In determining whether to grant the motion to dismiss the complaint, the courts below erroneously concluded that their inquiry was strictly limited to the "four corners" of the notice of claim (see, Schwartz v. City of New York, 250 N.Y. 332, 335, 165 N.E. 517 ["Circumstances must determine in each case whether the notice served is sufficient"]. In passing on the sufficiency of a notice of claim in the context of a motion to dismiss, courts are not confined to the notice of claim itself. The relevant inquiry is set forth in General Municipal Law 50-e(6), which provides that "a mistake, omission, irregularity or defect made in good faith * * * may be corrected, supplied or disregarded, as the case may be, in the discretion of the court, provided it shall appear that the other party was not prejudiced thereby." In making this determination of prejudice, the court may look to evidence adduced at a section 50-h hearing, and to such other evidence as is properly before the court.