You are here: / / Breach of Contract Action Against School District Untimely—Notice...

Breach of Contract Action Against School District Untimely—Notice of Claim Required by Education Law 3813 Not Filed Within Three Months of the Accrual of the Claim

In finding plaintiff’s breach of contract action against defendant school district was time-barred, the Second Department noted the Education Law, as a condition precedent, requires the filing of a notice of claim within three months of the accrual of the cause of action:

Education Law § 3813(1) requires a party to serve a notice of claim upon a school district within three months after the accrual of such claim as a condition precedent to the commencement of an action … . Claims arising out of a breach of contract accrue when “payment for the amount claimed was denied” (Education Law § 3813[1]). A denial of payment is only deemed to occur “upon an explicit refusal to pay” or when a party should have viewed its claim as having been constructively rejected … . Here, in support of that branch of the defendants’ cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the defendants demonstrated, prima facie, that the plaintiff failed to serve a notice of claim within three months of … the date when the defendants explicitly refused payment to the plaintiff. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact … . School Aid Specialists, LLC v Board of Educ. of Warwick Val. Cent. Sch. Dist., 2015 NY Slip Op 06328, 2nd Dept 7-29-15

 

You might also like
AN INSPECTION OF THE BLACKTOP FIVE TO SEVEN WEEKS BEFORE PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY STEPPED IN A HOLE AND FELL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION (SECOND DEPT).
THE EIGHT-INCH WIDE BEAM CLAIMANT WAS MOVING ALONG WHEN HE FELL WAS THE FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT OF A SCAFFOLD, BRINGING THE ACTION WITHIN THE SCOPE OF LABOR LAW 240(1); THE SAFETY LINE PROVIDED TO CLAIMANT DID NOT PROTECT HIM FROM THE FALL; CLAIMANT WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS FOUND AT THE BOTTOM OF STAIRS; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE THE CAUSE OF THE FALL WAS UNKNOWN; IN ADDITION, THE NOSEWORTHY DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY (SECOND DEPT).
Striking Answer for Spoliation of Evidence Too Severe a Sanction—Spoliation Was Not “Willful or Contumacious,” Both Parties Were Prejudiced by the Loss, Plaintiff Was Not Deprived of Means of Proving the Claim
THE LABOR-LAW CONSTRUCTION-ACCIDENT ACTION WAS PRECLUDED BY THE RESULT OF THE PRIOR WORKERS’ COMPENSATION HEARING UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL; THE MOTION TO AMEND THE ANSWER TO ADD THE COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DEFENSE WAS PROPERLY GRANTED, EVEN THOUGH THE MOTION WAS MADE AFTER THE NOTE OF ISSUE WAS FILED (SECOND DEPT).
Summary Judgment Premature—Disclosure Necessary
DEFENDANT WAS NOT AN OWNER OR A GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND EXERCISED NO SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY OVER THE INJURED PLAINTIFF’S WORK, THEREFORE THE LABOR LAW CAUSES OF ACTION WERE PROPERLY DISMISSED; HOWEVER DEFENDANT MAY HAVE BEEN RESPONSIBLE FOR CREATING THE ALLEGEDLY DANGEROUS CONDITION DURING PRIOR WORK ON THE PROPERTY; THEREFORE THE COMMON-LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMSSED (SECOND DEPT).
THE COUNTY LEGISLATURE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION REQUIRING THE DISCLOSURE OF AN ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S FINANCIAL INFORMATION AFTER THE COUNTY ETHICS COMMITTEE DENIED THE DISCLOSURE-REQUEST MADE BY A NEWSPAPER; THE LEGISLATURE USURPED THE POWER OF A REVIEWING COURT (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

Police Officer’s Observations Filtered Through His Experience Justified... Insufficient Evidence of Incapacity—Appointment of Guardian Reversed