Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Sharon E. SHARPE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TOWN OF CONESUS, Keith English, Code Enforcement Officer, Defendants-Respondents, et al., Defendants.
Plaintiff commenced this action on April 1, 2004 against, inter alia, the Town of Conesus (Town) and Keith English, Code Enforcement Officer for the Town (defendants), to recover damages for the alleged negligent inspection and approval of improvements to plaintiff's home. The home improvements were last inspected by English on February 1, 2001. Plaintiff contends that she timely served the notice of claim on March 24, 2003, which was within 90 days after she discovered the code violations and defects. She further contends that she timely commenced the action within one year and 90 days of “the happening of the event upon which the claim is based” (General Municipal Law § 50-i[1] [c] ). We conclude, however, that Supreme Court properly granted the motion of defendants to dismiss the complaint against them pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5). The time within which to serve a notice of claim and to commence the action began to run on February 1, 2001, the date that English last inspected the premises. Plaintiff thus failed to serve a notice of claim within 90 days after the claim arose and failed to commence the action within one year and 90 days “after the happening of the event upon which the claim is based” (General Municipal Law § 50-i[1][c]; see Klein v. City of Yonkers, 53 N.Y.2d 1011, 1012-1013, 442 N.Y.S.2d 477, 425 N.E.2d 865; Matter of Witt v. Town of Amherst [Appeal No. 2], 17 A.D.3d 1030, 794 N.Y.S.2d 187; Johnson v. Marianetti, 202 A.D.2d 970, 609 N.Y.S.2d 494).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.
MEMORANDUM:
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: June 10, 2005
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)