You are here: / / SECOND DEPARTMENT JOINS THE THIRD AND FOURTH DEPARTMENTS IN HOLDING INDIVIDUAL...

SECOND DEPARTMENT JOINS THE THIRD AND FOURTH DEPARTMENTS IN HOLDING INDIVIDUAL MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES NEED NOT BE NAMED AS DEFENDANTS IN A NOTICE OF CLAIM.

The Second Department decided to follow the Third and Fourth Departments and did not require the naming of individual municipal employees as defendants in a notice of claim. The decision in this false arrest, malicious prosecution and civil rights violation case is substantive and deals with several issues not summarized here, including the District Attorney’s immunity from suit. With respect to the notice of claim, the court wrote:

The Appellate Division, First Department, has held that “General Municipal Law § 50-e makes unauthorized an action against individuals who have not been named in a notice of claim” … . * * * The plurality opinion in that case stated that the names of individual employees, if unknown, should still be named as John or Jane Does to enable the municipality to properly investigate the claims and to put individual defendants on notice that they will be sued. …

In contrast, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, has held that naming individual municipal employees in a notice of claim is not a condition precedent to joining those individuals as defendants in the action … . In Goodwin, the Fourth Department noted that General Municipal Law § 50-e(2), which sets forth the requirements for a notice of claim, does not include a requirement that specific individual employees be named, and concluded that “[t]he underlying purpose of the statute may be served without requiring a plaintiff to name the individual agents, officers or employees in the notice of claim” (id. at 216). In Pierce v Hickey (129 AD3d 1287, 1289), the Appellate Division, Third Department, followed Goodwin, stating that there was no requirement that “an individual municipal employee be named in the notice of claim.”

We agree with the Third and Fourth Departments. * * * Listing the names of the individuals who allegedly committed the wrongdoing is not required … . Blake v City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 02399, 2nd Dept 3-29-17

 

You might also like
​PLAINTIFF’S FIRST EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT WAS DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE NYS HUMAN RIGHTS LAW; PLAINTIFF’S SECOND COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE SAME STATUTE; THE SECOND COMPLAINT WAS NOT BARRED BY THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA (SECOND DEPT). ​
AFTER MOTHER CONSENTED TO A NEGLECT FINDING AND THE CHILD WAS PLACED IN KINSHIP FOSTER CARE, MOTHER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED UNSUPERVISED VISITATION WITHOUT A HEARING 2ND DEPT.
THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE DRIVER WHO ALLEGEDLY INJURED PLAINTIFF WAS AN EMPLOYEE OR A SUBCONTRACTOR WITH RESPECT TO ONE OF THE THREE DEFENDANTS, THE OTHER TWO DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THE DRIVER WAS NOT AN EMPLOYEE ENTITLING THEM TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT). ​
COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR CONVERSION AND TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH A CONTRACT (SECOND DEPT).
Cleaning Gutters Not Covered
TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONTRACT WHICH WERE ALLEGEDLY BREACHED MUST BE IDENTIFIED IN THE COMPLAINT; WHERE IT IS CONCEDED THAT A CONTRACT EXISTS, A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR QUASI CONTRACT MUST BE DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
FIREFIGHTER RULE DID NOT PRECLUDE ACTION BY POLICE OFFICER STEMMING FROM A FALL AT THE OFFICE; GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-e ACTION PROPERLY BASED ON ALLEGED VIOLATION OF LABOR LAW 27-a.
THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS ENGAGED IN REPAIR AS OPPOSED TO ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OF THE AIR CONDITIONER WHEN HE WAS INJURED; THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DIMSISS THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION WAS PROPERLY DENIED; HOWEVER THE LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMIISED BECAUSE PLAINTIFF WAS NOT INVOLVED IN CONSTRUCTION (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

FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE MADE FINDINGS ALLOWING JUVENILE TO PETITION FOR SPECIAL... 19 YEAR OLD NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS NOT SUFFICIENT WRITTEN NOTICE OF SIDEWALK D...