Acevedo v. City of Newburgh

Full title: ALFRED ACEVEDO et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF NEWBURGH, Respondent, et…

Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jun 6, 1994

205 A.D.2d 483 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

614 N.Y.S.2d 262

Opinion

June 6, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Orange County (Peter Patsalos, J.).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint based on their failure to commence the action within one year and 90 days of the occurrence of the events upon which the claim was based (see, General Municipal Law § 50-i [c]).

We additionally conclude that the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion, inter alia, for leave to have Catherine V. Ventry's letter of April 25, 1991 deemed an amended notice of claim. The letter was not sworn to by or on behalf of each claimant and therefore did not satisfy the requirement set forth in General Municipal Law § 50-e (2).

We have reviewed the plaintiffs' remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit. Bracken, J.P., Miller, Copertino, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.