Slemish Corp. v. Morgenthau

4 Citing cases

  1. RSRNC, LLC v. Wilson

    220 A.D.3d 1139 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)   Cited 3 times

    ove, 55 A.D.3d 785, 786, 866 N.Y.S.2d 317 [2d Dept. 2008] ), courts have recognized that the notice of claim provision in the County Law is broader, applying to "[a]ny claim ... against a county for damage, injury or death, or for invasion of personal or property rights, of every name and nature, and whether casual or continuing trespass or nuisance and any other claim for damages arising at law or in equity, alleged to have been caused or sustained in whole or in part by or because of any misfeasance, omission of duty, negligence or wrongful act on the part of the county, its officers, agents, servants or employees" ( County Law § 52[1] ). The County Law provision has thus been held to be applicable to some claims that are technically non-torts (see e.g.Mills v. County of Monroe, 59 N.Y.2d 307, 309–310, 464 N.Y.S.2d 709, 451 N.E.2d 456 [1983], cert denied 464 U.S. 1018, 104 S.Ct. 551, 78 L.Ed.2d 725 [1983] ; Boyle v. Kelley, 42 N.Y.2d 88, 91, 396 N.Y.S.2d 834, 365 N.E.2d 866 [1977] ; Slemish Corp. S.A. v. Morgenthau, 192 A.D.3d 465, 467, 144 N.Y.S.3d 164 [1st Dept. 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 909, 152 N.Y.S.3d 666, 686, 174 N.E.3d 691, 711 [2021] ; Sager v. County of Sullivan, 145 A.D.3d at 1176–1177, 41 N.Y.S.3d 443 ; Picciano v. Nassau County Civ. Serv. Commn., 290 A.D.2d 164, 170–171, 736 N.Y.S.2d 55 [2d Dept. 2001] ; Malcuria v. Town of Seneca, 66 A.D.2d 421, 424, 414 N.Y.S.2d 401 [4th Dept. 1979] ). However, the broader sweep of County Law § 52 – indisputably still rooted in tort-like claims – does not extend so far as to encompass claims that are contractual in nature (seeSmith v. Rise E. School, 120 A.D.2d 726, 726, 502 N.Y.S.2d 780 [2d Dept. 1986] ; Copece Contr. Corp. v. County of Erie, 115 A.D.2d 320, 320, 495 N.Y.S.2d 871 [4th Dept. 1985] ; but seeSlemish Corp. S.A. v. Morgenthau, 192 A.D.3d at 467, 144 N.Y.S.3d 164 ).

  2. Cnty. of Monroe v. Siemens Indus.

    No. 23-CV-6398DGL (W.D.N.Y. May. 15, 2024)

    See 2022 WL 4482738 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2022). The County's reliance on Slemish Corp., S.A. v. Morgenthau, 192 A.D.3d 465 (1st Dep't 2021), is also misplaced. The court there held that § 52 applied to the plaintiff companies' claim against a district attorney whose prosecution of the companies' domestic agent for transferring funds without a license resulted in the forfeiture of funds in bank accounts maintained by their agent, which the plaintiffs alleged belonged to them.

  3. Thompson v. The City of New York

    2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 34471 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2023)

    Timely service of a notice of claim, pursuant to GML§ 50-e, is a condition precedent to maintaining a lawsuit against a public corporation (Davidson v Bronx Mun. Hosp., 64 N.Y.2d 59, 61 [1984]). The Appellate Division, First Department has held that, for the purposes of GML §50-k, "the District Attorney of the county of New York is considered a city employee" (Slemish Corp., S.A. v Morgenthau, 192 A.D.3d 465, 467 [1st Dept 2021]), and pursuant to County Law § 52, "a notice of claim is required before filing an action against the office of a District Attorney in the City of New York" (id., at 468 citing Drakeford v Brooklyn Dist. Attorney, 266 A.D.2d 134 [1st Dept 1999], Iv dismissed 95 N.Y.2d 877 [2000]).

  4. Feufeu Gu v. Henry

    2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 32607 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2023)

    Sections 50-e of the General Municipal Law states that in any case founded upon tort where a notice of claim is required by law as a condition precedent to the commencement of an action, the notice of claim must be served within ninety days after the claim arises (GML § 50-e). The, Appellate Division, First Department has held that "a notice of claim is required before filing an action against the office of a District Attorney in the City of New York" (Blemish Corp.v.Morgenthau, 192 A.D.3d 465, 467-68 [1st Dept 2021] (citing Drakeford v. Brooklyn District Attorney, 266 A.D.2d 134 [1st Dept 1999]). Further, it has been held that a complaint should be dismissed where a required notice of claim has not been timely served (see Adkins v New York 51A.D.2d 944, 945 [1st Dept 1976]).