Murray v. LeRoy Central School District
491 N.E.2d 1100, 67 N.Y.2d 775, 500 N.Y.S.2d 643, 1986 N.Y. LEXIS 17480
Opinion
OPINION OF THE COURT
Order affirmed, with costs. There was no compliance with the notice of claim requirements of Education Law § 3813— neither substantial compliance with requirements as to form nor strict compliance with the requirements of notice (see, Parochial Bus Sys. v Board of Educ., 60 NY2d 539, 547-548).
Concur: Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander and Titone. Taking no part: Judge Hancock, Jr.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Murray v. LeRoy Central School District, 491 N.E.2d 1100, 67 N.Y.2d 775, 500 N.Y.S.2d 643, 1986 N.Y. LEXIS 17480 (N.Y. 1986).
491 N.E.2d 1100 (Murray v. LeRoy Central School District) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Incorporated Vil. of Freeport v. Freeport Plaza W., LLC
New York Court of Appeals, 2026
Anderson v. City of New York
2025 NY Slip Op 32252(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2025)
Columna v. Gomez
S.D. New York, 2022
Jones v. City Of New York
S.D. New York, 2021
Fincher v. The City of New York
S.D. New York, 2021
Lewis v. Livingston County Center for Nursing & Rehabilitation
30 F. Supp. 3d 196 (W.D. New York, 2014)
Arum v. Miller
193 F. Supp. 2d 572 (E.D. New York, 2002)
Kyne v. Carl Beiber Bus Services
147 F. Supp. 2d 215 (S.D. New York, 2001)
Winifred Hardy v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp. And Queens Hospital Center
164 F.3d 789 (Second Circuit, 1999)
Stoetzel v. Wappingers Central School District
166 A.D.2d 643 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
American Tel. & Tel. v. NYC DEPT. OF HUMAN RES.
736 F. Supp. 496 (S.D. New York, 1990)
American Telephone & Telegraph Co v. New York City Department of Human Resources
736 F. Supp. 496 (S.D. New York, 1990)