You are here: / / NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIRED FOR WRONGFUL TERMINATION SUIT AGAINST A COUNTY,...
,

NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIRED FOR WRONGFUL TERMINATION SUIT AGAINST A COUNTY, EVEN THOUGH A NOTICE OF CLAIM WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED FOR A SIMILAR SUIT AGAINST A CITY.

The Third Department determined plaintiff’s wrongful termination suit against the county was properly dismissed for failure to file a notice of claim. The court noted that the notice of claim requirement for suits against cities is more narrow and applies only to tort cases. The notice of claim requirements for suits against counties are not limited to tort actions:

County Law § 52 (1) broadly provides that “[a]ny claim . . . against a county for damage [or] injury . . . and any other claim for damages arising at law or in equity, alleged to have been caused . . . by or because of any misfeasance, omission of duty, negligence or wrongful act on the part of the county, its officers, agents, servants or employees, must be made and served in compliance with [General Municipal Law § 50-e]” … . Here, plaintiff’s complaint sought damages for wrongful termination and, thus, pursuant to County Law § 52 (1), General Municipal Law § 50-e (1) (a) required service of a notice of claim within 90 days after the claim for retaliatory termination arose. It is undisputed that plaintiff failed to serve a notice of claim, entitling defendant to dismissal of the complaint … .

Plaintiff’s reliance on appellate decisions involving complaints asserting a Civil Service Law § 75-b or similar claims against cities, in which the courts have ruled that the filing of a notice of claim is not required … , is misplaced. The cases cited by plaintiff involve claims against cities to which the more narrow notice of claim provisions of General Municipal Law §§ 50-e and 50-i apply, limiting the requirement for notices of claim to “tort” claims (General Municipal Law § 50-e [1] [a]) or claims for “personal injury, wrongful death or damage to real or personal property” (General Municipal Law § 50-i [1]). Sager v County of Sullivan, 2016 NY Slip Op 08152, 3rd Dept 12-1-16

 

EMPLOYMENT LAW (NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIRED FOR WRONGFUL TERMINATION SUIT AGAINST A COUNTY, EVEN THOUGH A NOTICE OF CLAIM WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED FOR A SIMILAR SUIT AGAINST A CITY)/MUNICIPAL LAW (NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIRED FOR WRONGFUL TERMINATION SUIT AGAINST A COUNTY, EVEN THOUGH A NOTICE OF CLAIM WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED FOR A SIMILAR SUIT AGAINST A CITY)/WRONGFUL TERMINATION (NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIRED FOR WRONGFUL TERMINATION SUIT AGAINST A COUNTY, EVEN THOUGH A NOTICE OF CLAIM WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED FOR A SIMILAR SUIT AGAINST A CITY)/COUNTIES (WRONGFUL TERMINATION, NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIRED FOR WRONGFUL TERMINATION SUIT AGAINST A COUNTY, EVEN THOUGH A NOTICE OF CLAIM WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED FOR A SIMILAR SUIT AGAINST A CITY)

You might also like
Estate of Mortgage-Holder Is a Necessary Party In a Foreclosure Proceeding
EXCLUSION OF INJURY FROM ASSAULT CONTROLLED, NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION STEMMING FROM ASSAULT NOT COVERED.
Elderly Patient’s Fall from an Examining Table Implicated a Duty of Care Which Takes Into Account Patient’s Infirmities/Elderly and Infirm Patient’s Fall from Examining Table Sounds in Medical Malpractice, Not Ordinary Negligence
Costs Properly Assessed Against Carrier for Instituting Proceedings Without Reasonable Ground
DEFENDANTS DID NOT AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE THEIR PRODUCTS WERE NOT THE SOURCE OF ASBESTOS EXPOSURE, POINTING TO GAPS IN PLAINTIFFS’ PROOF IS NOT ENOUGH, DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 3RD DEPT.
CLAIMANT ENROLLED IN A BARBER TRAINING PROGRAM AFTER HIS REGULAR UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS HAD RUN OUT, HE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ADDITIONAL BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).
Interest Paid In Advance Should Not Be Deducted from the Face Amount of the Loan When Determining Interest Rate—Law of Usury Does Not Apply to Interest After the Maturity of the Note (Late Payments)
IT IS NOT REVERSIBLE ERROR FOR DEFENDANT TO NOT BE PRESENT AT A SIDEBAR WHICH RESULTS IN GRANTING A PEREMPTORY OR FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A JUROR, AN ORDER OF PROTECTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ISSUED FOR A FACT WITNESS WHO DID NOT ACTUALLY SEE THE SHOOTING (THIRD DEPT).

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

CLAIMANT WAS NOT A NECESSARY EMPLOYEE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CIVIL SERVICE... PETITIONER OPERATED AN ONSHORE PETROLEUM STORAGE FACILITY WITHOUT A LICENSE...