Opinion
December 5, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Segal, J.).
Ordered that the orders are affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.
Contrary to the appellants' contentions, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the first affirmative defense contained in the appellants' answer and amended answer, i.e., that the plaintiffs had failed to serve a notice of claim in compliance with General Municipal Law § 50-e. The record establishes, and the appellants do not contest, that a notice of claim was properly served on January 15, 1993, pursuant to a court order so providing (General Municipal Law § 50-e; Matter of Callahan v City of New York, 75 N.Y.2d 899; Matter of Parco v City of New York, 160 A.D.2d 581).
The appellants' contention that the plaintiffs failed to comply with the requirement that an action may not be commenced until at least 30 days have elapsed since the service of the notice of claim is raised for the first time on appeal. Thus, it is unpreserved for appellate review (Telaro v Telaro, 25 N.Y.2d 433, 439; Key Bank v Burns, 162 A.D.2d 501, 502; Empire Indus. Sys. Corp. v Northeastern Bank, 144 A.D.2d 429).
We have considered the appellants' remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J.P., Miller, Ritter and Goldstein, JJ., concur.