Martz v. Incorporated Village of Valley Stream

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Martz v. Incorporated Village of Valley Stream

210 A.D.2d 205, 620 N.Y.S.2d 267, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12341

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

DecidedDecember 5, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 210 A.D.2d 205 (Martz v. Incorporated Village of Valley Stream) 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

Martz v. Incorporated Village of Valley Stream, 210 A.D.2d 205, 620 N.Y.S.2d 267, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12341 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, for restitution, the plaintiff appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Di Noto, J.), entered July 2, 1993, which, upon granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the ground that the complaint was defective in failing to plead and prove compliance with CPLR 9802, and denying the plaintiff’s cross motion to file a late notice of claim and to amend the complaint, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Pursuant to CPLR 9802, the plaintiff’s failure to file a written verified claim with the Village Clerk within one year after the cause of action accrued was fatal to her claim. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment (see, Solow v Liebman, 175 AD2d 867, 869; Ayvee Constr. Co. v Village of New Paltz, 78 AD2d 942), and denied the plaintiff’s cross motion to file a late notice of claim and to amend the complaint. Bracken, J. P., Balletta, Ritter, Pizzuto and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, for restitution, the plaintiff appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Di Noto, J.), entered July 2, 1993, which, upon granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the ground that the complaint was defective in failing to plead and prove compliance with CPLR 9802, and denying the plaintiff’s cross motion to file a late notice of claim and to amend the complaint, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Pursuant to CPLR 9802, the plaintiff’s failure to file a written verified claim with the Village Clerk within one year after the cause of action accrued was fatal to her claim. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment (see, Solow v Liebman, 175 AD2d 867, 869; Ayvee Constr. Co. v Village of New Paltz, 78 AD2d 942), and denied the plaintiff’s cross motion to file a late notice of claim and to amend the complaint. Bracken, J. P., Balletta, Ritter, Pizzuto and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

210 A.D.2d 205, 620 N.Y.S.2d 267, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12341, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martz-v-incorporated-village-of-valley-stream-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack