From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Smith v. Rise East School

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 27, 1986
120 A.D.2d 726 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Opinion

May 27, 1986

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Walsh, J.).


Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

County Law § 52, which incorporates the provisions of the General Municipal Law §§ 50-e and 50-i does not apply to actions to recover damages for breach of contract (see, e.g., Fraccola v City of Utica, 77 A.D.2d 161; Meed v Nassau County Police Dept., 70 Misc.2d 274). Since the plaintiff's surviving causes of action sound in contract, Special Term properly refused to dismiss those causes of action for the plaintiff's failure to serve a notice of claim. Mills v County of Monroe ( 59 N.Y.2d 307, cert denied 464 U.S. 1018), upon which the defendants rely in urging dismissal of the complaint, does not require a contrary result. The Mills decision only addressed the applicability of the notice of claim requirement to an employment discrimination action brought pursuant to State or Federal civil rights statutes. We do not believe the Court of Appeals in Mills v County of Monroe (supra) intended to construe County Law § 52 as requiring the serving of a notice of claim in actions to recover damages for breach of contract. Mollen, P.J., Thompson, Rubin and Lawrence, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Smith v. Rise East School

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 27, 1986
120 A.D.2d 726 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)
Case details for

Smith v. Rise East School

Case Details

Full title:SHIRLEY SMITH, Respondent, v. RISE EAST SCHOOL et al., Appellants

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

Date published: May 27, 1986

Citations

120 A.D.2d 726 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Citing Cases

Hamilton v. Cnty. of Onondaga

For any claim against a county alleged to have been caused by "any misfeasance, omission of duty, negligence…

Finley v. Giacobbe

Plaintiff cites several cases which she claims establish that an article 78 proceeding is not the proper…