You are here: / / Individual Employees of Defendant Can Be Named In the Complaint Even Though...
, ,

Individual Employees of Defendant Can Be Named In the Complaint Even Though They Were Not Named in the Notice of Claim

In this case a notice of claim was filed naming the Erie County Medical Center Corporation (ECMCC) as defendant. In the complaint, the individual doctors, employees of ECMCC, were named as defendants. Overruling precedent to the contrary, the Fourth Department determined it was not necessary to name the individual employees in the notice of claim in order to sue them. In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Scudder, the Fourth Department wrote:

 …[D]efendants contend that, although service of the notice of claim on the Employee Defendants was not required, plaintiff was nevertheless required to name those individual defendants in the notice of claim as a condition precedent to the commencement of an action against them. Despite precedent supporting that contention, we agree with Supreme Court that there is no such requirement. * * *

Although “[p]recedents involving statutory interpretation are entitled to great stability” …, we conclude that the courts have misapplied or misunderstood the law in creating, by judicial fiat, a requirement for notices of claim that goes beyond those requirements set forth in the statute.

If the legislature had intended that there be a requirement that the individual employees be named in the notices of claim, it could easily have created such a requirement. Goodwin, et al, v Pretorius, et al, 101, CA 12-01441, 4th Dept. 3-22-13

 

You might also like
COMPLAINT DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PRIMA FACIE TORT, ELEMENTS EXPLAINED (FOURTH DEPT)
POLICE OFFICER’S CAUSES OF ACTION FOR DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION SHOULD HAVE SURVIVED THE MOTION TO DISMISS.
DOCTRINE OF TAX ESTOPPEL PREVENTED DEFENDANTS FROM ASSERTING FACTS ABOUT THE SALE OF PROPERTY CONTRARY TO THE INFORMATION IN THE REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER REPORT, PLAINTIFF’S ACTION TO ENFORCE A RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
Plaintiff Raised a Question of Fact About Whether Her Employment Was Terminated in Retaliation for Protected Activity
PLAINTIFF SOUGHT ARREARAGES FOR A PORTION OF DEFENDANT’S PENSION UNDER THE TERMS OF THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT WHICH WAS INCORPORATED BUT NOT MERGED INTO THE JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE; THE ACTION WAS THEREFORE IN THE NATURE OF A BREACH OF CONTRACT AND WAS LIMITED BY THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (FOURTH DEPT).
A WITNESS WHO WOULD HAVE TESTIFIED THE COMPLAINANT IN THIS SEXUAL ABUSE PROSECUTION HAD OFFERED TO GIVE FALSE TESTIMONY ABOUT THE WITNESS’S BOYFRIEND SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO TESTIFY (FOURTH DEPT). ​
Question of Fact About Whether Plaintiff’s Actions Were Sole Proximate Cause of Fall—Plaintiff Was Using Stilts for Ceiling Work
DISABLED POLICE OFFICER SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED BREACHES OF A DUTY OF CARE BY THE CITY AND BY HEALTH CARE MANAGERS WHICH CONTRACTED WITH THE CITY TO MANAGE PLAINTIFF’S HEALTH CARE.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Failure to Identify Notice Witness, Erroneous Missing Witness Charge and Erroneous... Defendant Could Not Deny Ownership Of Vehicle (Which Was Allegedly Transferred...