From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Schacker Real Estate Corp. v. Town of Babylon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 6, 2000
278 A.D.2d 221 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Argued October 31, 2000.

December 6, 2000.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gerard, J.), dated December 14, 1999, which granted the plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended verified complaint pursuant to CPLR 3025, and denied their cross motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff failed to file a timely notice of claim pursuant to Town Law § 65(3).

John J. Burke, Jr., Town Attorney, Lindenhurst, N.Y. (Michael P. Mercurio of counsel), for appellants.

Farrell Fritz, P.C., Uniondale, N.Y. (John M. Armentano and Colleen C. McMahon of counsel), for respondent.

Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, HOWARD MILLER, NANCY E. SMITH, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Town Law § 65(3) provides that an action against a town arising out of a contract dispute must be commenced within 18 months of the date on which a cause of action accrued, and a written verified claim must be filed with the town clerk within six months of the date on which the cause of action accrued. Generally speaking, a plaintiff's cause of action accrues when he or she should have viewed the claim as actually or constructively rejected (see, Trison Contr. v. Town of Huntington, 227 A.D.2d 397). Under the facts presented, the Supreme Court properly concluded that the defendants did not unambiguously reject the plaintiff's claim for payment until December 21, 1998. Accordingly, the verified notice of claim filed with the Town Clerk of Babylon in January 1999, was timely (see, Town Law § 65; Trison Contr. v. Town of Huntington, supra; Boeckman Assocs. v. Board of Educ., Hempstead Union Free School Dist., 207 A.D.2d 773). Further, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiff leave to file a verified complaint which included an allegation of compliance with Town Law § 65(3) (see, McCaskey, Davis Assoc. v. New York City Health Hosps. Corp., 59 N.Y.2d 755, 757).


Summaries of

Schacker Real Estate Corp. v. Town of Babylon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 6, 2000
278 A.D.2d 221 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Schacker Real Estate Corp. v. Town of Babylon

Case Details

Full title:SCHACKER REAL ESTATE CORP., RESPONDENT, v. TOWN OF BABYLON, ETC., ET AL.…

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

Date published: Dec 6, 2000

Citations

278 A.D.2d 221 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
717 N.Y.S.2d 286

Citing Cases

Inform Applications, Inc. v. Town of Brookhaven

Town Law § 65(3) provides that “no action shall be maintained against a town upon or arising out of a…

Micro-Link, LLC v. Town of Amherst

Contrary to defendant's contention, the court applied the appropriate standard in determining the accrual…