From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dodge, Chamberlin v. Dutchess Co. Bd.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 1, 1999
258 A.D.2d 434 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

February 1, 1999

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Jiudice, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

In August 1994 the plaintiff submitted invoices to the defendant seeking payment for certain engineering and design work it had performed. A dispute arose over the amounts due, and the invoices remained unpaid for several months. Eventually, by letters dated May 5, 1995, the plaintiff advised the defendant and the defendant's attorney that unless the invoices were paid within 10 days, it would terminate its relationship with the defendant and commence an action to recover the amounts it claimed were due. The deadline passed without any payments being made. In November 1995 the plaintiff filed a notice of claim for the disputed amounts.

Pursuant to Education Law § 3813, no action may be maintained against, among others, a board of cooperative educational services unless a notice of claim was served "within three months after the accrual of such claim" (Education Law § 3813). Furthermore, in actions for "monies due arising out of contract, accrual: of such claim shall be deemed to have occurred as of the date payment for the amount claimed was denied" (Education Law § 3813). Here, the plaintiff's May 5, 1995, letters informed the defendant that if it did not pay the invoices within 10 days of receipt thereof, the plaintiff would commence an action against the defendant. Upon the expiration of that period without approval or payment, the plaintiffs claims were constructively rejected and its cause of action accrued ( see, Memphis Constr. v. Village of Moravia, 59 A.D.2d 646, 647; see also, City of New York v. State of New York, 40 N.Y.2d 659, 668-669; Rason Asphalt v. Town of Oyster Bay, 8 Misc.2d 411, mod 6 A.D.2d 810). Accordingly, the notice of claim filed nearly six months later, was untimely, and the court correctly dismissed the complaint.

Ritter, J. P., Thompson, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Dodge, Chamberlin v. Dutchess Co. Bd.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 1, 1999
258 A.D.2d 434 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Dodge, Chamberlin v. Dutchess Co. Bd.

Case Details

Full title:DODGE, CHAMBERLIN, LUZINE, WEBER ARCHITECTS, Appellant, v. DUTCHESS COUNTY…

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

Date published: Feb 1, 1999

Citations

258 A.D.2d 434 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
684 N.Y.S.2d 583

Citing Cases

Zurich American Insurance v. Ramapo Central School District

On December 5, 2005 PCC submitted various claims to the School District for the adjustment of claims for…

Scantron Corp. v. N.Y. City Bd. of Educ

Rather, they apply to the three-month period of § 3813(1) the "constructive rejection" concept that had been…