From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Spano v. County of Onondaga

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 1, 1991
170 A.D.2d 974 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

February 1, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Reagan, J.

Present — Callahan, J.P., Denman, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.


Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Initially, we note that plaintiff's notice of appeal is premature because it was filed prior to the issuance and entry of the order from which the appeal is taken (see, Matter of Wayne M. v Francis N., 154 A.D.2d 837, 839; Matter of Abbott v Conway, 148 A.D.2d 909, 910, lv denied 74 N.Y.2d 608). Nonetheless, in the exercise of our discretion and in the interest of judicial economy, we address the merits of the appeal (see, CPLR 5520 [c]) and affirm for reasons stated in the decision of Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Reagan, J.).

Furthermore, plaintiff's cause of action for malicious prosecution against the County of Onondaga was properly dismissed because he served his notice of claim before that cause of action accrued. Plaintiff thereafter failed to serve a notice of claim within 90 days subsequent to the accrual of that cause of action (see, Vitale v Hagan, 71 N.Y.2d 955, rearg denied 72 N.Y.2d 910).


Summaries of

Spano v. County of Onondaga

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 1, 1991
170 A.D.2d 974 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

Spano v. County of Onondaga

Case Details

Full title:LEONARD C. SPANO, Appellant, v. COUNTY OF ONONDAGA et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Feb 1, 1991

Citations

170 A.D.2d 974 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
565 N.Y.S.2d 665

Citing Cases

Robinson v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ.

Finally, the New York State Education Law requires “potential plaintiffs to file a notice of claim with the…

Matter of James

Memorandum: Initially, we note that respondent's notice of appeal is premature because it was filed before…