From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Patterson v. Ford

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 9, 1998
255 A.D.2d 373 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

November 9, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bucaria, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against the appellants are dismissed.

The record establishes that pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h, a hearing was timely noticed, that it was adjourned multiple times at the plaintiff's request, and that the plaintiff served a summons and complaint upon the appellants before the hearing was held. The law is well established that a potential plaintiff who has not complied with General Municipal Law § 50-h (1) is precluded from commencing an action against a municipality ( see, Heins v. Board of Trustees, 237 A.D.2d 570; Arcila v. Incorporated Vil. of Freeport, 231 A.D.2d 660; Schrader v. Town of Orangetown, 226 A.D.2d 620). Accordingly, the appellants' motion to dismiss the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them should have been granted.

Mangano, P. J., Joy, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Patterson v. Ford

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 9, 1998
255 A.D.2d 373 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Patterson v. Ford

Case Details

Full title:KEVIN PATTERSON, Respondent, v. MICHAEL FORD et al., Defendants, and…

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

Date published: Nov 9, 1998

Citations

255 A.D.2d 373 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
679 N.Y.S.2d 706

Citing Cases

Zapata v. County of Suffolk

In response to the plaintiff's inquiry, the County of Suffolk advised him that he was responsible for taking…

Thornton v. Village of Freeport

A plaintiff who fails to comply with General Municipal Law § 50-h is precluded, in the absence of…