You are here: / / Criteria for Taxpayer Lawsuit Against School District for Misuse of Public...
,

Criteria for Taxpayer Lawsuit Against School District for Misuse of Public Property Not Met; Failure to Serve Notice of Claim Fatal

In reversing Supreme Court, the Second Department determined that the failure to serve a notice of claim upon the school district (in a tort action) required dismissal and the criteria for a taxpayer suit against the district under General Municipal Law 51 had not been met:

Pursuant to Education Law § 3813, a plaintiff commencing a tort action against a school district must serve a notice of claim upon the school district. “Service of a notice of claim is a condition precedent to bringing an action against a school district or a board of education'”… . * * *

“A taxpayer suit under General Municipal Law § 51 lies only when the acts complained of are fraudulent, or a waste of public property in the sense that they represent a use of public property or funds for entirely illegal purposes'” … .. Further, to establish “common-law taxpayer standing,” a plaintiff must demonstrate that he or she is “personally aggrieved by those actions in a manner different in kind and degree from the community generally” and that “the failure to accord [him or her] standing would be in effect to erect an impenetrable barrier to any judicial scrutiny of legislative action”… . Fauvell v Miglino, 2013 NY Slip Op 07150, 2nd Dept 11-6-13

 

You might also like
JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, GRANTED RELIEF NOT REQUESTED BY A PARTY, HERE THE ABILITY FOR UNLIMITED AMENDMENT OF A NOTICE OF CLAIM WHICH HAD NOT YET BEEN FILED; SUA SPONTE ORDERS ARE NOT APPEALABLE; LEAVE TO APPEAL GRANTED AS AN EXERCISE OF DISCRETION (SECOND DEPT).
ELEMENTS OF AIDING AND ABETTING FRAUD EXPLAINED, WHEN FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT CAN INVALIDATE AN ARBITRATION CLAUSE EXPLAINED (NOT THE CASE HERE).
Fight On School Bus Was Not Foreseeable and Could Not Have Been Prevented
A NEW TRIAL IS REQUIRED BECAUSE THE JUDGE DID NOT RESPOND TO A NOTE FROM THE JURY (SECOND DEPT).
INSUFFICIENT WEIGHT BEARING CAPACITY OF SHEETROCK FORMING THE ATTIC FLOOR WAS NOT AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION (SECOND DEPT).
NO EVIDENCE POSSESSION OF A WEAPON AND SHOOTING THE VICTIM WERE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT, SENTENCES SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONCURRENT (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS NOT BARRED FROM SEEKING RENT OVERCHARGES BASED UPON A 1986 RENT REDUCTION ORDER (SECOND DEPT).
A Defendant’s Status as an Undocumented Alien Cannot Be the Sole Ground for Imposing Incarceration As Opposed to Probation

Categories

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

Copyright © 2023 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Failure to Identify Industrial Code Violation in Pleadings Not Fatal/Supervisory... “Assessor’s Formula” for Determining Property Tax Assessment for Golf...