Cavanaugh v. Board of Education

296 A.D.2d 369, 745 N.Y.S.2d 433, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7076
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 1, 2002
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 296 A.D.2d 369 (Cavanaugh v. Board of Education) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Cavanaugh v. Board of Education, 296 A.D.2d 369, 745 N.Y.S.2d 433, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7076 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for employment discrimination in violation of Executive Law § 296, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Burke, J.), entered July 24, 2001, as denied those branches of its motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the second and third causes of action.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, those branches of the motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the second and third causes of action are granted, and the complaint is dismissed in its entirety.

The Supreme Court erred in denying those branches of the defendant’s motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the second and third causes of action on the ground that the plaintiff failed to timely file a notice of claim. The second and third causes of action alleged that the plaintiff was forced to resign as a result of the defendant’s refusal to reasonably accommodate her disability and age discrimination in violation of Executive Law § 296, respectively. Where, as here, a plaintiff seeks private relief for employment discrimination in violation of the Executive Law, the timely filing of a notice of claim is a condition precedent to suit (see Education Law § 3813 [1]; Mills v County of Monroe, 59 NY2d 307, cert denied 464 US 1018; Sangermano v Board of Coop. Educ. Servs. of Nassau County, 290 AD2d 498).

In light of this determination, it is unnecessary to address [370]*370the defendant’s remaining contentions. Altman, J.P., Krausman, Schmidt and Crane, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cutaneo v. New York City Dept. of Educ.
2024 NY Slip Op 33478(U) (New York Supreme Court, Kings County, 2024)
Savvis v. New York City Department of Education
142 A.D.3d 545 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Agostinello v. Great Neck Union Free School District
102 A.D.3d 638 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Eldridge v. Carmel Central School District Board of Education
82 A.D.3d 1147 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Munro v. Ossining Union Free School District
55 A.D.2d 697 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Cody v. County of Nassau
577 F. Supp. 2d 623 (E.D. New York, 2008)
Caruso v. Massapequa Union Free School District
478 F. Supp. 2d 377 (E.D. New York, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
296 A.D.2d 369, 745 N.Y.S.2d 433, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7076, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cavanaugh-v-board-of-education-nyappdiv-2002.