CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION INC v. TOWN OF EASTCHESTER (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract and for related injunctive and declaratory relief, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nancy Quinn Koba, J.), dated August 7, 2024.  The order, insofar as appealed from, granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff Civil Service Employees Association, Inc., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL–CIO, Westchester County Local # 860, Town of Eastchester Unit # 9227 (hereinafter the CSEA), and the defendant Town of Eastchester are parties to a collective bargaining agreement (hereinafter the CBA) which provides, among other things, that seniority shall be the determining factor for selection to a vacant position where all other factors are equal.  In February 2020, the Town created a new general foreman position (hereinafter the position).  There were two applicants:  the plaintiff Ralph DeBenedictis and the defendant Richard Ruggerio.  In March 2020, the Town adopted a resolution appointing Ruggerio to the position.  DeBenedictis, through the CSEA, filed a grievance under the CBA. Thereafter the parties proceeded to non-binding arbitration in accordance with the CBA, and the arbitrator issued an award in favor of DeBenedictis, which was rejected by the Town's Board at a meeting in March 2021.

In October 2021, the plaintiffs commenced this action against the defendants to recover damages for breach of contract and for related injunctive and declaratory relief.  After joinder of issue, the defendants moved, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.  The plaintiffs opposed.  In an order dated August 7, 2024, the Supreme Court, among other things, granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.  The plaintiffs appeal.

“ ‘The filing of a notice of claim is ․ a condition precedent to the maintenance of an action against a town arising out of the contractual relationship between a plaintiff and a town’ ” (Dannemann v. Town of E. Hampton Dept. of Land Acquisition & Mgt., 221 A.D.3d 960, 961, 201 N.Y.S.3d 424, quoting W.O.R.C. Realty Corp. v. Town of Islip, 104 A.D.3d 677, 678, 960 N.Y.S.2d 448;  see Town Law § 65[3] ).  “Under Town Law § 65(3), no action shall be maintained against a town upon or arising out of a contract entered into by the town ․ unless a written verified claim shall have been filed with the town clerk within six months after the cause of action shall have accrued” (Dannemann v. Town of E. Hampton Dept. of Land Acquisition & Mgt., 221 A.D.3d at 962, 201 N.Y.S.3d 424 [internal quotation marks omitted] ).  “ ‘[I]n contrast to other notice statutes, Town Law § 65(3) contains no provision allowing the court to excuse noncompliance with its requirements' ” (id., quoting McCulloch v. Town of Milan, 74 A.D.3d 1034, 1035, 907 N.Y.S.2d 19).

Here, the plaintiffs failed to file a notice of claim.  Contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, an exception to the Town Law § 65(3) notice of claim requirement is only applicable where a plaintiff has pleaded an ongoing or continuing violation, which the complaint in the present action did not (see e.g. Friscia v. Village of Geneseo, 197 A.D.3d 848, 850, 152 N.Y.S.3d 745;  cf.  Dannemann v. Town of E. Hampton Dept. of Land Acquisition & Mgt., 221 A.D.3d at 961–962, 201 N.Y.S.3d 424).  Since the plaintiffs seek both the recovery of damages and equitable relief, the filing of a notice of claim was a condition precedent to the maintenance of this action (see Matter of Fotopoulos v. Board of Fire Commrs. of the Hicksville Fire Dist., 161 A.D.3d 733, 735, 76 N.Y.S.3d 592).  Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see Dannemann v. Town of E. Hampton Dept. of Land Acquisition & Mgt., 221 A.D.3d at 961–962, 201 N.Y.S.3d 424;  Whalen v. Reisman, 298 A.D.2d 455, 455, 748 N.Y.S.2d 281).

The parties' remaining arguments either are not properly before this Court or need not be reached in light of our determination.

IANNACCI, J.P., DOWLING, LANDICINO and LOVE, JJ., concur.