From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mills v. County of Monroe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jul 9, 1982
89 A.D.2d 776 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982)

Summary

holding that notice of claim provision in section 50-e does not apply to discrimination claims brought against municipal defendants under the Human Rights Law because they are not "tort" claims

Summary of this case from Aguilar v. the New York Convention Center Operating Corp.

Opinion

July 9, 1982

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Monroe County, Wagner, J.

Present — Dillon, P.J., Simons, Doerr, Boomer and Schnepp, JJ.


Order unanimously reversed, without costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced an action for money damages alleging her wrongful discharge from employment by defendant in violation of section 296 Exec. of the Executive Law (racial discrimination). Claiming that plaintiff's cause of action sounded in tort, defendant moved for summary judgment on the ground (among others) of failure to file a notice of claim pursuant to section 50-e Gen. Mun. of the General Municipal Law. Special Term denied the motion. While section 50-e Gen. Mun. of the General Municipal Law provides the procedural mechanism for filing a notice of claim when required, section 50-i of the statute sets forth the kinds of actions which will trigger the requirement to provide a municipality with a notice of claim. Subdivision 1 of section 50-i provides in pertinent part: "No action or special proceeding shall be prosecuted or maintained against a city, county, town, village, fire district or school district for personal injury, wrongful death or damage to real or personal property alleged to have been sustained by reason of the negligence or wrongful act * * * unless * * * a notice of claim shall have been made and served". Thus, the applicability of the statute is confined to tort claims for personal injury, wrongful death, or damage to property and not to torts generally. Plaintiff argues correctly that an action brought under section 296 Exec. of the Executive Law is not a tort claim which falls within the notice provisions of the General Municipal Law. Nonetheless, her action must be dismissed. Section 52 County of the County Law requires a notice of claim to be served upon a county in any "claim for damages arising at law or in equity, alleged to have been caused or sustained in whole or in part by or because of any misfeasance, omission of duty, negligence or wrongful act on the part of the county, its officers, agents, servants or employees" in compliance with section 50-e Gen. Mun. of the General Municipal Law. Plaintiff's action seeks money damages for the alleged wrongful acts of the county and her conceded failure to file the requisite notice of claim within 90 days after her claim accrued bars her action ( Matter of Phaler v. Hicks, 71 A.D.2d 820; Malcuria v. Town of Seneca, 66 A.D.2d 421, 424).


Summaries of

Mills v. County of Monroe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jul 9, 1982
89 A.D.2d 776 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982)

holding that notice of claim provision in section 50-e does not apply to discrimination claims brought against municipal defendants under the Human Rights Law because they are not "tort" claims

Summary of this case from Aguilar v. the New York Convention Center Operating Corp.

finding § 50–i is confined to “tort claims for personal injury, wrongful death, or damage to property and not to torts generally” so notice of claim requirement does not extend to civil rights claim for discrimination under New York Executive Law § 296

Summary of this case from Eberle v. Town of Southampton

finding § 50-i is confined to "tort claims for personal injury, wrongful death, or damage to property and not to torts generally" so notice of claim requirement does not extend to civil rights claim for discrimination under New York Executive Law § 296

Summary of this case from Cirigliano v. Village of Afton

In Mills, the court nonetheless found that a notice of claim was required under a more expansive law applicable to suits against counties.

Summary of this case from Glaves-Morgan v. City of New York

In Mills, supra, the New York Appellate Division held that even though section 50-e itself does not apply to discrimination claims, and even though section 52 expressly incorporates section 50-e, the notice of claim requirement in section 52 nonetheless applies to discrimination claims against county entities because such claims plainly are encompassed by the broad statutory language "[a]ny claim... for damages arising at law or in equity."

Summary of this case from Aguilar v. the New York Convention Center Operating Corp.

In Mills, we observed that "the State's notice requirements are [not] antithetical to the policy underlying the civil rights laws... [N]otice of claim requirements in this State serve an important State interest.

Summary of this case from Margerum v. City of Buffalo
Case details for

Mills v. County of Monroe

Case Details

Full title:CHAU MILLS, Respondent, v. COUNTY OF MONROE, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Jul 9, 1982

Citations

89 A.D.2d 776 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982)

Citing Cases

Yan Ping Xu v. New York City Department of Health

Petitioner urges instead that a retaliatory filing suit is akin to an employment claim under the Human Rights…

Thygesen v. N. Bailey Volunteer Fire Co.

It is well settled that the notice of claim requirements of General Municipal Law § 50–e do not apply to…