Hecht v. City of Syracuse

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hecht v. City of Syracuse

201 A.D.2d 958, 610 N.Y.S.2d 911, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2150

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

DecidedFebruary 4, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 201 A.D.2d 958 (Hecht v. City of Syracuse) 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

Hecht v. City of Syracuse, 201 A.D.2d 958, 610 N.Y.S.2d 911, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2150 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint because plaintiff failed to file a notice of claim as required by Syracuse City Charter § 8-115 (2). Compli[959]*959anee with that section’s notice of claim requirement, “unless waived, is a condition precedent to the commencement of litigation against the City” (Davis-Wallbridge, Inc. v City of Syracuse, 71 NY2d 842, 843, rearg denied 72 NY2d 841). There is no express agreement that that section is inapplicable nor is there any indication the parties have set forth detailed procedures inconsistent with the notice of claim requirement. The section therefore may not be deemed to have been waived (see, Hall-Kimbrell Envtl. Servs. v East Ramapo Cent. School Dist., 177 AD2d 56, 58). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Nicholson, J. — Dismiss Action.) Present— Callahan, J. P., Pine, Fallon, Doerr and Davis, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint because plaintiff failed to file a notice of claim as required by Syracuse City Charter § 8-115 (2). Compli[959]*959anee with that section’s notice of claim requirement, “unless waived, is a condition precedent to the commencement of litigation against the City” (Davis-Wallbridge, Inc. v City of Syracuse, 71 NY2d 842, 843, rearg denied 72 NY2d 841). There is no express agreement that that section is inapplicable nor is there any indication the parties have set forth detailed procedures inconsistent with the notice of claim requirement. The section therefore may not be deemed to have been waived (see, Hall-Kimbrell Envtl. Servs. v East Ramapo Cent. School Dist., 177 AD2d 56, 58). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Nicholson, J. — Dismiss Action.) Present— Callahan, J. P., Pine, Fallon, Doerr and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

201 A.D.2d 958, 610 N.Y.S.2d 911, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2150, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hecht-v-city-of-syracuse-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack