Hale v. Scopac

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hale v. Scopac

74 A.D.3d 1906, 903 N.Y.S.2d 642

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

DecidedJune 18, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 74 A.D.3d 1906 (Hale v. Scopac) 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

Hale v. Scopac, 74 A.D.3d 1906, 903 N.Y.S.2d 642 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

[1907]*1907Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Oneida County (Samuel D. Hester, J.), entered February 10, 2009. The order granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for, inter alia, slander arising out of statements made by defendant Paul Scopac, vice-president of the Clinton Central School District Board of Education (School Board), and defendant Guy Van Baalen, a member thereof, concerning plaintiffs bid to provide bus maintenance and storage services to the school district. Supreme Court properly granted defendants’ pre-answer motion to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to file a timely notice of claim. We reject the contentions of plaintiff that he was not required to file a notice of claim because the complaint alleges intentional wrongdoing on the part of defendants, and because he was suing defendants both individually and in their official capacities. The record establishes that the alleged statements were made by defendants in the context of addressing official business at a School Board meeting and not in their individual capacities. A notice of claim is required where, as here, “the conduct complained of [by plaintiff, e.g., slander,] occurred during the discharge of the defendant[s’] duties within the scope of [their] employment” (DeRise v Kreinik, 10 AD3d 381, 382 [2004]). Furthermore, although plaintiff sued defendants in their individual capacities, plaintiff was nevertheless required to file a notice of claim prior to commencing this action in view of the context in which the alleged statements were made (see Education Law § 3813 [1]; see generally Ruggiero v Phillips, 292 AD2d 41, 44-45 [2002]), and it is undisputed that plaintiff failed to do so. Present— Centra, J.P., Peradotto, Lindley and Pine, JJ.

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

[1907]*1907Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Oneida County (Samuel D. Hester, J.), entered February 10, 2009. The order granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for, inter alia, slander arising out of statements made by defendant Paul Scopac, vice-president of the Clinton Central School District Board of Education (School Board), and defendant Guy Van Baalen, a member thereof, concerning plaintiffs bid to provide bus maintenance and storage services to the school district. Supreme Court properly granted defendants’ pre-answer motion to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to file a timely notice of claim. We reject the contentions of plaintiff that he was not required to file a notice of claim because the complaint alleges intentional wrongdoing on the part of defendants, and because he was suing defendants both individually and in their official capacities. The record establishes that the alleged statements were made by defendants in the context of addressing official business at a School Board meeting and not in their individual capacities. A notice of claim is required where, as here, “the conduct complained of [by plaintiff, e.g., slander,] occurred during the discharge of the defendant[s’] duties within the scope of [their] employment” (DeRise v Kreinik, 10 AD3d 381, 382 [2004]). Furthermore, although plaintiff sued defendants in their individual capacities, plaintiff was nevertheless required to file a notice of claim prior to commencing this action in view of the context in which the alleged statements were made (see Education Law § 3813 [1]; see generally Ruggiero v Phillips, 292 AD2d 41, 44-45 [2002]), and it is undisputed that plaintiff failed to do so. Present— Centra, J.P., Peradotto, Lindley and Pine, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

74 A.D.3d 1906, 903 N.Y.S.2d 642, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hale-v-scopac-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack