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.
Laverne J. HIBBERT, et al., appellants, v. SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION, et al., respondents.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages based upon a violation of Executive Law § 296, the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Henry, J.), entered October 19, 1998, which, upon an order of the same court dated October 7, 1997, denying the defendants' prior motion to dismiss the complaint and denying as academic the plaintiffs' cross motion, inter alia, for leave to serve a late notice of claim, and an order of the same court dated August 20, 1998, granting renewal of the motion and cross motion and, upon renewal, dismissing the complaint, dismissed the complaint.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court did not err, upon renewal, in dismissing the complaint because the plaintiffs failed to file a timely notice of claim (see, Mills v. County of Monroe, 59 N.Y.2d 307, 464 N.Y.S.2d 709, 451 N.E.2d 456, cert. denied 464 U.S. 1018, 104 S.Ct. 551, 78 L.Ed.2d 725; Sebastian v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 221 A.D.2d 294, 634 N.Y.S.2d 114). A notice of claim was required because the plaintiffs sought only to vindicate their individual interests, in the form of money damages, for an alleged invasion of their personal property rights (Executive Law § 296; County Law § 52[1]; General Municipal Law §§ 50-e, 50-i; Roens v. New York City Tr. Auth., 202 A.D.2d 274, 609 N.Y.S.2d 6). Moreover, the plaintiffs' cross motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim, or to have prior lawsuits and Federal filings deemed the equivalent of a timely notice of claim, nunc pro tunc, was made on June 30, 1997, more than one year and 90 days from the March 14, 1994, accrual date of their grievance. The Supreme Court was therefore without authority to grant their cross motion (General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]; see, e.g., Pierson v. City of New York, 56 N.Y.2d 950, 453 N.Y.S.2d 615, 439 N.E.2d 331; McSherry v. Hawthorne School, 246 A.D.2d 517, 667 N.Y.S.2d 765; see also, Piontka v. Suffolk County Police Dept., 202 A.D.2d 409, 608 N.Y.S.2d 503).
MEMORANDUM BY 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.
Decided: December 06, 1999
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)