From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Schrader v. Town of Orangetown

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 22, 1996
226 A.D.2d 620 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

April 22, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Miller, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint is granted without prejudice to serving a new complaint upon complying with General Municipal Law § 50-h.

The plaintiff concedes that, pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h, a hearing was noticed, that it was adjourned twice, at his request, and that he served a summons and complaint upon the defendants before the hearing was held. The law is well established that a potential plaintiff who has not complied with General Municipal Law § 50-h (1) is precluded from commencing an action against a municipality ( see, General Municipal Law § 50-h; Baumblatt v. Battalia, 134 A.D.2d 226, 228; Alouette Fashions v. Consolidated Edison Co., 119 A.D.2d 481, 485-486, affd 69 N.Y.2d 787). Accordingly, the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint should have been granted. Rosenblatt, J.P., Sullivan, Copertino, Santucci and Goldstein, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Schrader v. Town of Orangetown

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 22, 1996
226 A.D.2d 620 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Schrader v. Town of Orangetown

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM H. SCHRADER, Respondent, v. TOWN OF ORANGE-TOWN et al., Appellants

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

Date published: Apr 22, 1996

Citations

226 A.D.2d 620 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
641 N.Y.S.2d 570

Citing Cases

Williams v. NYC TR. AUTH.

Ironically, although the Transit Authority argues that General Municipal Law § 50-h is not applicable to it,…

Williams v. New York City Transit Auth

Ironically, although the Transit Authority argues that GML § 50-h is not applicable to it, it string cites to…