Howard v. Uniondale Union Free School District

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Howard v. Uniondale Union Free School District

162 A.D.2d 500, 559 N.Y.S.2d 143, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7353

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

DecidedJune 11, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 162 A.D.2d 500 (Howard v. Uniondale Union Free School District) 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

Howard v. Uniondale Union Free School District, 162 A.D.2d 500, 559 N.Y.S.2d 143, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7353 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for intentional infliction of physical and emotional distress, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brucia, J.), dated January 9, 1989, which granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The notice of claim which was filed by the plaintiff within 90 days of the conduct complained of (see, Education Law § 3813 [2]; General Municipal Law § 50-e [1] [a]), was adequate to provide the defendant with sufficient information with respect to the nature of the plaintiff’s claim so that an [501]*501efficient investigation could be made (see, Parochial Bus Sys. v Board of Educ., 60 NY2d 539, 547; Matter of Board of Educ. [Wager Constr. Corp.], 37 NY2d 283, 289). Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff failed to timely serve an adequate notice of claim.

However, dismissal of the complaint is warranted on Statute of Limitations grounds. A reading of the amended complaint establishes that the event upon which the plaintiff’s claim was based occurred in September 1986. Accordingly, this action, which was commenced in March 1988, is time barred (see, Education Law § 3813 [2]; General Municipal Law § 50-i [1] [c]). Thompson, J. P., Brown, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for intentional infliction of physical and emotional distress, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brucia, J.), dated January 9, 1989, which granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The notice of claim which was filed by the plaintiff within 90 days of the conduct complained of (see, Education Law § 3813 [2]; General Municipal Law § 50-e [1] [a]), was adequate to provide the defendant with sufficient information with respect to the nature of the plaintiff’s claim so that an [501]*501efficient investigation could be made (see, Parochial Bus Sys. v Board of Educ., 60 NY2d 539, 547; Matter of Board of Educ. [Wager Constr. Corp.], 37 NY2d 283, 289). Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff failed to timely serve an adequate notice of claim.

However, dismissal of the complaint is warranted on Statute of Limitations grounds. A reading of the amended complaint establishes that the event upon which the plaintiff’s claim was based occurred in September 1986. Accordingly, this action, which was commenced in March 1988, is time barred (see, Education Law § 3813 [2]; General Municipal Law § 50-i [1] [c]). Thompson, J. P., Brown, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 A.D.2d 500, 559 N.Y.S.2d 143, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7353, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/howard-v-uniondale-union-free-school-district-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack