Opinion
March 14, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Floyd, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Pursuant to the mandate of CPLR 9802, the plaintiff was required to serve a notice of claim upon the Village of East Hampton in compliance with General Municipal Law § 50-e, i.e., within 90 days of the accrual of the cause of action (see, Nassau County v. Incorporated Vil. of Roslyn, 182 A.D.2d 678; Solow v. Liebman, 175 A.D.2d 867). The plaintiff's attempt to circumvent this requirement by alleging that the claims asserted in the proposed amended complaint against the Village arise from a "continuing wrong", i.e., the wrongful issuance to the defendant, a neighboring landowner, of a building permit and certificate of occupancy, are unavailing. A cause of action involving the wrongful issuance of a building permit accrues when the permit is issued (see, Curtis Case v. City of Port Jervis, 150 A.D.2d 421), and does not constitute a continuing wrong (see, Bloomfield Bldg. Wreckers v. City of Troy, 50 A.D.2d 673, affd 41 N.Y.2d 1102; Matter of Waterside Assocs. v. New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 127 A.D.2d 663, affd 72 N.Y.2d 1009; Pekar v Town of Veteran, 65 A.D.2d 651; Band v. Town of Colonie, 36 A.D.2d 785). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly concluded that the plaintiff's failure to serve a timely notice of claim required rejection of the "legally insufficient" proposed amended complaint (see, Matter of Consolidated Edison Co. [Neptune Assocs.], 143 A.D.2d 1012).
In light of our determination, we do not address the parties' remaining contentions. Sullivan, J.P., Miller, O'Brien and Krausman, JJ., concur.