From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Smith v. Cty. of Suffolk

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 14, 2009
61 A.D.3d 743 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)

Opinion

No. 2008-10843.

April 14, 2009.

In an action to recover damages for assault, abuse of process, malicious prosecution, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Sgroi, J.), dated September 19, 2008, as denied those branches of their motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 and General Municipal Law § 50-e which were to dismiss the second and third causes of action alleging abuse of process and malicious prosecution, respectively.

Christine Malafi, County Attorney, Hauppauge, N.Y. (Christopher A. Jeffreys of counsel), for appellants.

Harold Chetrick, P.C., New York, N.Y., for respondent.

Before: Mastro, J.P., Dickerson, Belen and Chambers, JJ.


Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

General Municipal Law § 50-e requires that a notice of claim be served within 90 days after a tort claim arises against a municipality ( see General Municipal Law § 50-e [a]; Castas v City of New York, 39 AD3d 681, 682; Matter of Narcisse v Incorporated Vil. of Cent. Islip, 36 AD3d 920; Bovich v East Meadow Pub. Lib., 16 AD3d 11, 16; Bluitt v Ridge Fire Dist., 230 AD2d 814, 815). "Timely service of a notice of claim is a condition precedent to a lawsuit sounding in tort and commenced against a municipality" ( Matter of National Grange Mut. Ins. Co. v Town of Eastchester, 48 AD3d 467, 468; see Knox v New York City Bur. of Franchises NY City, 48 AD3d 756, 757). Contrary to the defendants' contention before the Supreme Court, the plaintiff served a timely notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e with respect to the second and third causes of action alleging abuse of process and malicious prosecution, respectively.

We have not considered the defendants' remaining contentions which were improperly raised for the first time in their reply papers before the Supreme Court ( see Medugno v City of Glen Cove, 279 AD2d 510) or on appeal ( see Ali v Richmond Indus. Corp., 59 AD3d 469; Kalra v Kalra, 57 AD3d 947; Robinson v Way, 57 AD3d 872; Provident Bank v Giannasca, 55 AD3d 812).


Summaries of

Smith v. Cty. of Suffolk

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 14, 2009
61 A.D.3d 743 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
Case details for

Smith v. Cty. of Suffolk

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT LEE SMITH, Respondent, v. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK et al., Appellants

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

Date published: Apr 14, 2009

Citations

61 A.D.3d 743 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 2985
876 N.Y.S.2d 658

Citing Cases

Valila v. Town of Hempstead

Finally, the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the nearly two-month delay in commencing this proceeding…

U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Boes

The argument that the judgment should be vacated pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (3) because procured through…