From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kowalski v. County of Erie

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 1, 1991
170 A.D.2d 950 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

February 1, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Erie County, Forma, J.

Present — Dillon, P.J., Denman, Green, Lawton and Davis, JJ.


Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed without prejudice, in accordance with the following Memorandum: Defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint should have been granted because plaintiff failed to comply with defendant's demand for an oral examination pursuant to section 50-h (5) of the General Municipal Law (see, La Vigna v County of Westchester, 160 A.D.2d 564; Baumblatt v Battalia, 134 A.D.2d 226; Restivo v Village of Lynbrook, 84 A.D.2d 831; Lowinger v City of New York, 64 A.D.2d 888). A dismissal for failure to fulfill a condition precedent is not a final judgment on the merits. Therefore, after plaintiff has complied with the County's demand, he may recommence this action, subject to whatever defenses the County may interpose (see, CPLR 205 [a]; Alouette Fashions v Consolidated Edison Co., 119 A.D.2d 481, 486, affd 69 N.Y.2d 787; De Ronda v Greater Amsterdam School Dist., 91 A.D.2d 1088).


Summaries of

Kowalski v. County of Erie

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 1, 1991
170 A.D.2d 950 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

Kowalski v. County of Erie

Case Details

Full title:JOSEPH KOWALSKI, Respondent, v. COUNTY OF ERIE, Appellant

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

Date published: Feb 1, 1991

Citations

170 A.D.2d 950 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Citing Cases

Steenbuck v. Sklarow

We affirm. When requested, a claimant's submission to a General Municipal Law § 50-h examination is a…

Rogan v. Sear-Brown Group

Counsel for the Plaintiffs relies upon case law, wherein the courts have applied the six month tolling…