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.
DEBRA SZALAY, PLAINTIFF–APPELLANT
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
PRO SE.
PRO SE.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained by plaintiff Zoltan Szalay during an altercation with defendant police officer. Contrary to plaintiffs' contention, Supreme Court properly granted defendants' cross motion seeking to dismiss the complaint pursuant to, inter alia, CPLR 3211(a)(8) on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction because plaintiffs failed to serve a notice of claim as required by General Municipal Law § 50–e (1). It is well established that the service of a notice of claim “is a condition precedent to a lawsuit against a municipal [defendant]” (Davidson v. Bronx Mun. Hosp., 64 N.Y.2d 59, 61), and it is undisputed that plaintiffs failed to serve a notice of claim with respect to the incident at issue. Plaintiffs failed to preserve for our review their contention that the Acting Supreme Court Justice should have recused herself because, inter alia, she is a resident of the Town of Webster and her daughter and plaintiffs' daughter were classmates inasmuch as they failed to raise those issues before the court (see generally Matter of Rath v. Melens, 15 AD3d 837, 837). In any event, plaintiffs' “ ‘claim of bias is not supported by the record and is thus insufficient to require recusal’ “ (Affinity Elmwood Gateway Props. LLC v AJC Props. LLC, 113 AD3d 1094, 1096). We have reviewed plaintiffs' remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit.
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
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.
Docket No: CA 15–02096
Decided: November 10, 2016
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
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)