Curran v. County of Otsego

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Curran v. County of Otsego

178 A.D.2d 743, 577 N.Y.S.2d 340, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16051

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 5, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 178 A.D.2d 743 (Curran v. County of Otsego) 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

Curran v. County of Otsego, 178 A.D.2d 743, 577 N.Y.S.2d 340, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16051 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Mahoney, P. J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Mugglin, J.), entered October 4, 1990 in Otsego County, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint as time barred.

Plaintiff, a licensed practical nurse formerly employed by defendant County of Otsego, commenced an action against the County and defendant Frances Ives, the night supervisor of its nursing facility, alleging that Ives unjustly and without good reason preferred patient abuse charges against her which were ultimately dismissed by the Board of Regents. Defendants moved for summary judgment or, in the alternative, dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211. Supreme Court granted the motion, dismissing the complaint as time barred, and this appeal followed.

We affirm. Were we to accept plaintiff’s complaint allegation that she became aware of the dismissal of the charges against her during May 1986, the notice of claim would have to have been filed no later than August 31, 1986 (General Municipal Law § 50-e). The notice of claim was not served until September 18, 1986. In the absence of any motion to extend the time to file and serve the notice of claim, service on September 18, 1986 was clearly untimely.

[744]*744Furthermore, we summarily reject plaintiffs remaining arguments and agree with Supreme Court that the record did not establish sufficient facts to operate as an estoppel similar to that applied in Salesian Socy. v Village of Ellenville (41 NY2d 521). Although the County did not raise the defense of untimely filing of the notice of claim in its answer, the case had not proceeded to the point where that defense could be deemed to have been waived (see, supra). Accordingly, the order of the Supreme Court which granted defendants’ motion dismissing the complaint should be affirmed.

Casey, Mikoll, Crew III and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

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

Mahoney, P. J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Mugglin, J.), entered October 4, 1990 in Otsego County, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint as time barred.

Plaintiff, a licensed practical nurse formerly employed by defendant County of Otsego, commenced an action against the County and defendant Frances Ives, the night supervisor of its nursing facility, alleging that Ives unjustly and without good reason preferred patient abuse charges against her which were ultimately dismissed by the Board of Regents. Defendants moved for summary judgment or, in the alternative, dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211. Supreme Court granted the motion, dismissing the complaint as time barred, and this appeal followed.

We affirm. Were we to accept plaintiff’s complaint allegation that she became aware of the dismissal of the charges against her during May 1986, the notice of claim would have to have been filed no later than August 31, 1986 (General Municipal Law § 50-e). The notice of claim was not served until September 18, 1986. In the absence of any motion to extend the time to file and serve the notice of claim, service on September 18, 1986 was clearly untimely.

[744]*744Furthermore, we summarily reject plaintiffs remaining arguments and agree with Supreme Court that the record did not establish sufficient facts to operate as an estoppel similar to that applied in Salesian Socy. v Village of Ellenville (41 NY2d 521). Although the County did not raise the defense of untimely filing of the notice of claim in its answer, the case had not proceeded to the point where that defense could be deemed to have been waived (see, supra). Accordingly, the order of the Supreme Court which granted defendants’ motion dismissing the complaint should be affirmed.

Casey, Mikoll, Crew III and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

178 A.D.2d 743, 577 N.Y.S.2d 340, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16051, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/curran-v-county-of-otsego-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack