You are here: / / DEFENDANT DID NOT FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST PLAINTIFF VILLAGE IN THIS...
, ,

DEFENDANT DID NOT FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST PLAINTIFF VILLAGE IN THIS CONTRACT ACTION AS REQUIRED BY CPLR 9802; THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S ANTICIPATORY-REPUDIATION COUNTERCLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THE VILLAGE’S PARTICIPATION IN DISCOVERY WAS NOT DESIGNED TO MISLEAD THE DEFENDANT AND DID NOT TRIGGER THE ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant’s failure to file a notice of claim required dismissal of its counterclaim (anticipatory repudiation of contract) against the village:

Pursuant to CPLR 9802, “no action shall be maintained against the village upon or arising out of a contract of the village . . . unless a written verified claim shall have been filed with the village clerk within one year after the cause of action shall have accrued.” “‘[S]tatutory requirements conditioning suit [against a governmental entity] must be strictly construed'” … . This is true even when the municipality “‘had actual knowledge of the claim or failed to demonstrate actual prejudice'” … .  …

… [T]he plaintiff’s exchanging of discovery and participation in the depositions of witnesses did not estop it from raising a defense pursuant to CPLR 9802, as mere participation in litigation does not constitute action calculated to mislead or discourage the defendant from filing a notice of claim … . Incorporated Vil. of Freeport v Freeport Plaza W., LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 03713, Second Dept 6-8-22

Practice Point: In a contract action against a municipality, here an anticipatory-repudiation-of-contract counterclaim, a notice of claim must be filed (CPLR 9802). No notice of claim was filed here and the counterclaim should have been dismissed. The fact that the municipality participated in discovery did not give rise to the estoppel doctrine because there was no intent to mislead the defendant with respect to the notice-of-claim requirement.

 

You might also like
THE DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THE CITY DID NOT NOTIFY THEM OF THE NEED TO REPAIR THE ABUTTING PUBLIC SIDEWALK AND THEREBY DEMONSTRATED THEY HAD NO STATUTORY DUTY TO REPAIR THE SIDEWALK; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERTY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT COULD NOT BRING A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION BEFORE ISSUE WAS JOINED BY SERVICE OF AN ANSWER (SECOND DEPT).
LOST NOTE AFFIDAVIT INSUFFICIENT BECAUSE UCC REQUIREMENTS NOT MET, PROOF OF RPAPL 1304 NOTICE INSUFFICIENT, PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH NOTICE CONDITION OF THE MORTGAGE INSUFFICIENT, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HE WAS STANDING ON AN A-FRAME LADDER WHEN IT SHIFTED CAUSING A CONCRETE SLAB TO FALL ON HIS HAND; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; IN ADDITION A DEFENDANT FAILED TO SHOW IT WAS NOT AN “OWNER” WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240(1) (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF COLLEGE SOCCER PLAYER ASSUMED THE RISK OF INJURY FROM BEING STRUCK IN THE HEAD BY A SOCCER BALL, SUFFERING A CONCUSSION, AND THEREAFTER BEING LEFT IN THE GAME, ALLEGEDLY EXACERBATING THE INJURY (SECOND DEPT).
THE COVID EXECUTIVE ORDERS TOLLING STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS EXTENDED THE DEADLINE FOR FILING ACTIONS UNDER THE CHILD VICTIMS ACT UNTIL NOVEMBER 12, 2021 (SECOND DEPT). ​
STORM IN PROGRESS RULE DID NOT APPLY, STORM STOPPED 12 HOURS BEFORE THE SLIP AND FALL 2ND DEPT.
DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE ADDRESS FOR DEFENDANT CORPORATION ON FILE WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE WAS INCORRECT, DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT ON THE GROUND DEFENDANT WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE ACTION IN TIME TO DEFEND (SECOND DEPT).

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

AFTER THE FORECLOSURE SALE BUT BEFORE THE CLOSING, THE MORTGAGOR STARTED AN... CORPORATE SHAREHOLDERS AND OFFICERS MAY ONLY BE LIABLE FOR LABOR LAW (WAGE-PAYMENT-RELATED)...