From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Scopelliti v. Town of New Castle

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 12, 1994
210 A.D.2d 308 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Summary

holding that once the plaintiff filed his discrimination claim with the NYSDHR, he was precluded from bringing a cause of action in court asserting the same discriminatory acts

Summary of this case from SAUNDERS v. NYC DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Opinion

December 12, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Burrows, J.).


Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiff's contentions, Executive Law § 297 (9) clearly set forth an election of remedies provision. Thus, once the plaintiff filed his age-discrimination claim with the New York State Division of Human Rights, he was precluded from bringing a cause of action in the New York State Supreme Court asserting the same discriminatory acts (see, Scott v Carter-Wallace, Inc., 147 A.D.2d 33; Long v ATT Information Sys., 733 F. Supp. 188).

Moreover, even assuming that the plaintiff was alleging different discriminatory acts, his complaint is time-barred due to his failure to serve a notice of claim upon the Town of New Castle (see, Piontka v Suffolk County Police Dept., 202 A.D.2d 409; Mills v County of Monroe, 89 A.D.2d 776, affd 59 N.Y.2d 307, cert denied 464 U.S. 1018). While the plaintiff correctly argues that an action brought pursuant to Executive Law § 296 is not a tort claim which falls within the notice provisions of the General Municipal Law (see, Alaimo v New York City Dept. of Sanitation, 203 A.D.2d 501; Simpson v New York City Tr. Auth., 188 A.D.2d 522), nevertheless, his action must be dismissed. Town Law § 67 (1), (2) provides that

"[a]ny claim * * * which may be made against the town * * * for damages for wrong or injury to person or property * * * shall be made and served in compliance with section fifty-e of the general municipal law * * *

"Every action upon such claim shall be commenced pursuant to the provisions of section fifty-i of the general municipal law" (see, Piontka v Suffolk County Police Dept., supra; Mills v County of Monroe, supra). Thus, the plaintiff's failure to comply with General Municipal Law § 50-i renders the action time-barred.

Likewise, the plaintiff's failure to file a claim with the Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission within 300 days of the alleged discriminatory act bars his Federal age discrimination cause of action (see, 29 U.S.C. § 626 [d]). Balletta, J.P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Scopelliti v. Town of New Castle

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 12, 1994
210 A.D.2d 308 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

holding that once the plaintiff filed his discrimination claim with the NYSDHR, he was precluded from bringing a cause of action in court asserting the same discriminatory acts

Summary of this case from SAUNDERS v. NYC DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

stating that "an action brought pursuant to Executive Law § 296 is not a tort claim which falls within the notice provisions of the General Municipal Law"

Summary of this case from Cody v. County of Nassau

In Scopelliti v. Town of New Castle (210 A.D.2d 308), this court held that a notice of claim was required under Town Law § 67 in an action brought pursuant to Executive Law § 296, while recognizing that this statutory cause of action was not a tort within the notice provisions of the General Municipal Law.

Summary of this case from Picciano v. Nassau Civil Service Commission
Case details for

Scopelliti v. Town of New Castle

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT L. SCOPELLITI, Appellant, v. TOWN OF NEW CASTLE et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Dec 12, 1994

Citations

210 A.D.2d 308 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
620 N.Y.S.2d 405

Citing Cases

Arnold v. Town of Camillus

In considering the text of Town Law § 67, Departments of the Appellate Division have concluded that "[s]uch…

Town of Brookhaven v. N.Y. Div. of Rights

The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, granted the Town's petition. We agree with the Supreme Court that…