Sullivan v. Board of Education of the Eastchester Union Free School District

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sullivan v. Board of Education of the Eastchester Union Free School District

154 A.D.2d 664, 546 N.Y.S.2d 665, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13744

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 30, 1989·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

— In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for defamation, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Buell, J.), entered April 15, 1988, which denied their motions to dismiss the complaint as time barred and for failure to file a proper notice of claim.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Pursuant to the prior order of this court (Sullivan v Board of Educ., 131 AD2d 836), the plaintiff served an amended notice of claim and amended complaint to remedy omissions in the originals (see, General Municipal Law § 50-e [6]; Tucker v Long Is. R. R. Co., 128 AD2d 517). The claims asserted in the amended complaint are based upon the same transactions and occurrences as the claims asserted in the original notice of claim and complaint. Since the defendants were provided with timely notice of the transactions and occurrences giving [665] rise to the claims asserted in the amended complaint, it may properly be deemed to have been timely interposed pursuant to the relation-back provision of CPLR 203 (e) (see, Caffaro v Trayna, 35 NY2d 245). Kunzeman, J. P., Rubin, Harwood and Bálletta, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for defamation, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Buell, J.), entered April 15, 1988, which denied their motions to dismiss the complaint as time barred and for failure to file a proper notice of claim.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Pursuant to the prior order of this court (Sullivan v Board of Educ., 131 AD2d 836), the plaintiff served an amended notice of claim and amended complaint to remedy omissions in the originals (see, General Municipal Law § 50-e [6]; Tucker v Long Is. R. R. Co., 128 AD2d 517). The claims asserted in the amended complaint are based upon the same transactions and occurrences as the claims asserted in the original notice of claim and complaint. Since the defendants were provided with timely notice of the transactions and occurrences giving [665] rise to the claims asserted in the amended complaint, it may properly be deemed to have been timely interposed pursuant to the relation-back provision of CPLR 203 (e) (see, Caffaro v Trayna, 35 NY2d 245). Kunzeman, J. P., Rubin, Harwood and Bálletta, JJ., concur.

Sullivan v. Board of Education of the Eastchester Union Free School District, 154 A.D.2d 664, 546 N.Y.S.2d 665, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13744 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

154 A.D.2d 664 (Sullivan v. Board of Education of the Eastchester Union Free School District) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related