Patterson v. Ford

255 A.D.2d 373, 679 N.Y.S.2d 706, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11812
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 9, 1998
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 255 A.D.2d 373 (Patterson v. Ford) 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
Patterson v. Ford, 255 A.D.2d 373, 679 N.Y.S.2d 706, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11812 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for false arrest and malicious prosecution, the defendants Officer Case, Officer Lester, and the Freeport Police Department appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bucaria, J.), dated October 29, 1997, which denied their motion to dismiss the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them for the plaintiff’s failure to comply with General Municipal Law § 50-h prior to commencing the action.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against the appellants are dismissed.

The record establishes that pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h, a hearing was timely noticed, that it was adjourned multiple times at the plaintiff’s request, and that the plaintiff served a summons and complaint upon the appellants before the hearing was held. The law is well established that a potential plaintiff who has not complied with General Municipal Law § 50-h (1) is precluded from commencing an action against a municipality (see, Heins v Board of Trustees, 237 AD2d 570; Arcila v Incorporated Vil. of Freeport, 231 AD2d 660; Schrader v Town of Orangetown, 226 AD2d 620). Accordingly, the appellants’ motion to dismiss the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them should have been granted. Mangano, P. J., Joy, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Kemp v. County of Suffolk
61 A.D.3d 937 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Bernoudy v. County of Westchester
40 A.D.3d 896 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Zapata v. County of Suffolk
23 A.D.3d 553 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
McDaniel v. City of Buffalo
291 A.D.2d 826 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Pelekanos v. City of New York
264 A.D.2d 446 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
255 A.D.2d 373, 679 N.Y.S.2d 706, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11812, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patterson-v-ford-nyappdiv-1998.