From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Alfred Santini Co. v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 23, 1999
266 A.D.2d 119 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

November 23, 1999

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lucindo Suarez, J.), entered July 21, 1998, denying defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted and the complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendants-appellants dismissing the complaint.

Michael A. Reisner, for Plaintiff-Respondent.

Sharyn Rootenberg, for Defendants-Appellants.

ROSENBERGER, J.P., WILLIAMS, TOM, MAZZARELLI, SAXE, JJ.


A claim for payment from the Board of Education must be preceded by a notice of claim served on the Board within three months of its accrual ( Education Law § 3813[1]; Parochial Bus Systems v. Board of Education of the City of New York, 60 N.Y.2d 539, 547-548), a condition precedent to the maintenance of the action (Castagna Son v. Board of Education of the City of New York, 151 A.D.2d 392), and untimeliness presents a fatal defect (Parochial Bus Systems v. Board of Education of the City of New York, supra). Accrual generally equates with the date upon which the damages are ascertainable (Castagna Son v. Board of Education of the City of New York, supra). For recovery of moneys due and owing out of a contract, the claim accrues at the time payment is denied, a rejection that may be constructively accomplished when, inter alia, the putative debtor declines to timely respond to the claimant's demand letter (Dodge, Chamberlin, Luzine, Weber Architects v. Dutchess County Board of Cooperative Educational Services, 258 A.D.2d 434, 684 N.Y.S.2d 583, lv denied 1999 N.Y. LEXIS 13 55). Since plaintiff was made aware by October 1996 that respondent would refuse to pay the claim, as was confirmed by correspondence in November 1996, and further confirmed by defendant's failure to respond within 10 days to plaintiff's demand for payment, as per plaintiff's November 7, 1996 demand letter, plaintiff's March 1997 notice of claim was untimely.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

Alfred Santini Co. v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 23, 1999
266 A.D.2d 119 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Alfred Santini Co. v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:ALFRED SANTINI CO., INC., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et…

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

Date published: Nov 23, 1999

Citations

266 A.D.2d 119 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
698 N.Y.S.2d 678

Citing Cases

Zurich American Insurance v. Ramapo Central School District

On December 5, 2005 PCC submitted various claims to the School District for the adjustment of claims for…

VOLMAR CONSTR. CORP. v. NYC SCH. CONSTR. AUTH.

Although the SCA did not explicitly refuse payment to Volmar until November 2002, this argument is unavailing…