Urena v. City of New York

Full title: ROSE URENA et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Nov 13, 1995

221 A.D.2d 429 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

633 N.Y.S.2d 391

Opinion

November 13, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.).

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

Eight notices of claim were filed by four separate plaintiffs stating that their claims arose as the result of their having been the victims of the wrongful conduct of a traffic enforcement agent and various police officers. Four notices of claim refer to the period from January 2, 1992, to May 20, 1992, as being the time when the malicious prosecution claims arose. The four notices of claim which relate to the plaintiffs' remaining causes of action refer to January 2, 1992, and afterward, as being the time when those additional claims arose.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the presence of the single word "negligence" in the latter four notices of claim does not constitute a statement of "the time when, the place where [or] the manner in which" the plaintiffs' claim based on negligent hiring arose (General Municipal Law § 50-e). The plaintiffs' claim based on negligent hiring presumably is premised on negligent acts or omissions which preceded January 2, 1992, the date of the plaintiffs' arrest (cf., DeLeonibus v Scognamillo, 183 A.D.2d 697). The notices of claim contain absolutely no factual "allegations concerning negligent hiring" (Bryant v City of New York, 188 A.D.2d 445, 446). Under these circumstances, the court properly dismissed the cause of action based on negligent hiring. Mangano, P.J., Bracken, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.