Summary
affirming the dismissal of claims against a school district because "[t]here was no compliance with the notice of claim requirements of Education Law sec. 3813 — neither substantial compliance with requirements as to form nor strict compliance with the requirements of notice"
Summary of this case from Cincotta v. Hempstead Union Free Sch. Dist.Opinion
Argued February 4, 1986
Decided March 18, 1986
Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department, Joseph D. Mintz, J.
Theron E. Howard for appellant.
E. Robert Fussell for respondents.
Order affirmed, with costs. There was no compliance with the notice of claim requirements of Education Law § 3813 — neither substantial compliance with requirements as to form nor strict compliance with the requirements of notice (see, Parochial Bus Sys. v Board of Educ., 60 N.Y.2d 539, 547-548).
Concur: Chief Judge WACHTLER and Judges MEYER, SIMONS, KAYE, ALEXANDER and TITONE. Taking no part: Judge HANCOCK, JR.