Legal Opinion
Harrigan v. Town of Smithtown
New York Supreme Court
Decided October 9, 1967PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJack Stanislaw, J.
The Smithtown Water District, one of the defendants in this action, moves to dismiss the complaint because of the failure of the plaintiff Mulligan to serve a notice of claim (General Municipal Law, §§ 50-e, 50-i). Mulligan moves to dismiss the affirmative defense which is based on that same failure.
Quite simply, the issue is whether" the Water District falls within the scope of the sections cited above requiring service of a notice of claim as a condition precedent to suit.
An action against a “ town * * * fire district or school district for personal injury” must be preceded by the filing of…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Jayne v. East Hills Water DistrictNew York Supreme Court · 1957
- Heughes v. Oliver Costich Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1933
- Grant v. Town of KirklandNew York Supreme Court · 1959
3Cited by4 opinions
- Laverne v. CorningDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1970
- Fraccola v. City of UticaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1980
- Martin v. Town of EsopusNew York Supreme Court · 1968
- Covanta Niagara, L.P. v. Town of Amherst Garbage & Refuse District No. 1New York Supreme Court · 2007