Natoli v. Board of Education of Norwich, Union Free School District No. 1

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Natoli v. Board of Education of Norwich, Union Free School District No. 1

277 A.D.2d 915

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

DecidedJune 27, 1950

StatusPublished

This text of 277 A.D.2d 915 (Natoli v. Board of Education of Norwich, Union Free School District No. 1) 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

Natoli v. Board of Education of Norwich, Union Free School District No. 1, 277 A.D.2d 915 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court denying a motion to dismiss a complaint and granting a cross motion for permission to serve notice of an infant’s claim nunc pro tunc and an amended complaint alleging service of such notice on the defendant. Notice of claim of an infant’s cause of action was not served within the time specified by subdivision 1 of section 3813 of the Education Law and section 50-e of the General Municipal Law. The complaint in the action subsequently commenced failed to allege the service of such notice as required by the sections. This was a condition precedent to the commencement of the action and the motion to dismiss the complaint should have been granted without prejudice. Inasmuch as the claimant was an infant, the court has power in its discretion and within certain limitations, to grant leave to serve notices of claim after the expiration of the time specified. Since the action would no longer be in existence and one year not having elapsed since the date of the accident, the conditions permitting the exercise of such discretion have been met and the application for leave to serve the notice of claim may be granted. (General Municipal Law, § 50-e, subd. 5.) Inasmuch as the action has been terminated there is no longer any complaint to be amended and this motion should be denied, leaving it to the plaintiff to commence a new action should he be so advised. The order, insofar as appealed from, is modified, on the law and facts, and as so modified affirmed, without costs to either party, as follows: (1) Defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint is granted, without prejudice. (2) Plaintiff’s motion for leave to serve notice of the infant’s claim is granted and the defendant is directed to accept service thereof with the same force and effect as if it had been served within the time specified by section 3813 of the Education Law and section 50-e of the General Municipal Law. (3) Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint is denied, without prejudice. Foster, P. J., Heffernan, Brewster, Deyo and Bergan, JJ., concur. [See post, p. 1063.]

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court denying a motion to dismiss a complaint and granting a cross motion for permission to serve notice of an infant’s claim nunc pro tunc and an amended complaint alleging service of such notice on the defendant. Notice of claim of an infant’s cause of action was not served within the time specified by subdivision 1 of section 3813 of the Education Law and section 50-e of the General Municipal Law. The complaint in the action subsequently commenced failed to allege the service of such notice as required by the sections. This was a condition precedent to the commencement of the action and the motion to dismiss the complaint should have been granted without prejudice. Inasmuch as the claimant was an infant, the court has power in its discretion and within certain limitations, to grant leave to serve notices of claim after the expiration of the time specified. Since the action would no longer be in existence and one year not having elapsed since the date of the accident, the conditions permitting the exercise of such discretion have been met and the application for leave to serve the notice of claim may be granted. (General Municipal Law, § 50-e, subd. 5.) Inasmuch as the action has been terminated there is no longer any complaint to be amended and this motion should be denied, leaving it to the plaintiff to commence a new action should he be so advised. The order, insofar as appealed from, is modified, on the law and facts, and as so modified affirmed, without costs to either party, as follows: (1) Defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint is granted, without prejudice. (2) Plaintiff’s motion for leave to serve notice of the infant’s claim is granted and the defendant is directed to accept service thereof with the same force and effect as if it had been served within the time specified by section 3813 of the Education Law and section 50-e of the General Municipal Law. (3) Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint is denied, without prejudice. Foster, P. J., Heffernan, Brewster, Deyo and Bergan, JJ., concur. [See post, p. 1063.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

277 A.D.2d 915, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/natoli-v-board-of-education-of-norwich-union-free-school-district-no-1-nyappdiv-1950.