Opinion
May 31, 1967
Appeal from an order and judgment of the County Court of Tioga County which dismissed a complaint alleging that an employee of the Waverly Central School District negligently caused damage to one of plaintiff's trucks. No notice of claim was filed by the State against the School District and the motion for dismissal was made based upon section 50-e Gen. Mun. of the General Municipal Law and section 3813 Educ. of the Education Law. The issue presented is whether failure to serve or file a notice of claim precludes the State from maintaining this action. It is our view in the instant case that the State is in the same position as any other plaintiff in an ordinary negligence action. According to section 3813 Educ. of the Education Law "No action or special proceeding, for any cause whatever * * * or claim against the district * * * shall be prosecuted" unless a notice of claim complying with section 50-e Gen. Mun. of the General Municipal Law has been presented to the district within three months after the accrual of the claim. These provisions are not special Statutes of Limitations (CPLR 201) that change the normal limitation periods of article 2 of the CPLR, but are conditions precedent to the maintenance of an action. Section 50-e Gen. Mun. of the General Municipal Law unequivocally labels the notice of claim "a condition precedent." (See, also, Natoli v. Board of Educ. of City of Norwich, 277 App. Div. 915, affd. 303 N.Y. 646; 1 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N.Y. Civ. Prac., par. 201.05.) We find the cases cited by the State to be distinguishable. The purpose of the notice of claim is to afford school districts an opportunity to investigate claims and obtain evidence promptly while it is still readily available ( Matter of Brown v. Board of Trustees of Town of Hamptonburg School Dist., 303 N.Y. 484, 490; Teresta v. City of New York, 304 N.Y. 440, 443). The language of section 3813 Educ. of the Education Law and section 50-e Gen. Mun. of the General Municipal Law is all inclusive. The State's action here is not one based on its special governmental character, but is an ordinary property damage claim and we see no danger to the State's sovereignty, prerogatives, rights, titles or interests in requiring it to file a notice of claim and comply with the general statutory conditions precedent to the maintenance of the action which compliance would be required of any plaintiff similarly situated. Order and judgment affirmed, with costs. Gibson, P.J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Aulisi and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum by Aulisi, J. [ 53 Misc.2d 843.]