From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pretino v. Wolbern

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 30, 1981
84 A.D.2d 830 (N.Y. App. Div. 1981)

Opinion

November 30, 1981


In a replevin action, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Young, J.), dated February 6, 1981, which, upon denying his motion for summary judgment, granted defendant summary judgment and dismissed the complaint. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. The defendant, as Deputy Chief Property Clerk of Nassau County, is an officer, agent, servant or employee of the county. Since the complaint alleges an invasion of plaintiff's property rights by reason of defendant's wrongful acts, a notice of claim is required to have been "made and served" upon the county in compliance with section 50-e Gen. Mun. of the General Municipal Law (see County Law, § 52, subd 1). Furthermore, since the service of a notice of claim within the statutory period is a condition precedent to commencement of this action (see General Municipal Law, § 50-e, subd 1, par [a]; § 50-i, subd 1), such service is required to be alleged in the complaint so that it may state a cause of action against the county (see CPLR 3211, subd [a], par 7; see, also, Fullam v. Westchester County Playland Comm., 276 App. Div. 925). In this case, the complaint fails to allege compliance with the General Municipal Law (§§ 50-e, 50-i), and plaintiff has not otherwise shown that a notice of claim was served upon the county. His reliance on a letter dated February 14, 1980, from his attorney to the District Attorney, demanding the return of the subject property, is misplaced. That letter, even if it could be considered a sufficient notice of claim, was not served upon the county in compliance with the General Municipal Law (§ 50-e, subd 3, par [a]) and the CPLR (311, subd 4). Moreover, it does not appear from the record that the correspondence which plaintiff relies upon was intended as a notice of claim and it does not satisfy the statutory requirements for such notices. (Cf. Schuler-Haas Elec. Corp. v. Wager Constr. Corp., 57 A.D.2d 707.) Accordingly, the order of Special Term must be affirmed. (See Boyle v Kelley, 42 N.Y.2d 88.) Titone, J.P., Mangano, Weinstein and Bracken, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Pretino v. Wolbern

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 30, 1981
84 A.D.2d 830 (N.Y. App. Div. 1981)
Case details for

Pretino v. Wolbern

Case Details

Full title:JOHN PRETINO, Appellant, v. RICHARD B. WOLBERN, as Deputy Chief Property…

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

Date published: Nov 30, 1981

Citations

84 A.D.2d 830 (N.Y. App. Div. 1981)

Citing Cases

Vesterhalt v. City of New York

Absent a showing of such a notice of claim, the complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a cause of…

Smith v. Scott

In the case at bar, the fact that the letter was not "sworn to" may be disregarded by the court as there is…