Legal Opinion
Caruso v. City of Buffalo Urban Renewal Agency
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided March 16, 1990No. Appeal No. 1PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion to dismiss complaint in first action granted, motion to dismiss complaint in second action denied and complaint reinstated. Memorandum: The City of Buffalo Urban Renewal Agency (BURA) contends that Supreme Court erred in denying its motion to dismiss or for summary judgment with respect to the complaint in the "First Action”. We agree.
The filing of a notice of claim is a condition precedent to a tort action against a public corporation (see, General Municipal Law § 50-e), and compliance with the filing requirement is part of…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Park Knoll Associates v. SchmidtNew York Court of Appeals · 1983
- Davidson v. Bronx Municipal HospitalNew York Court of Appeals · 1984
- Pecue v. . WestNew York Court of Appeals · 1922
- Camarella v. East Irondequoit Central School BoardNew York Court of Appeals · 1974
- E. Williamson Roofing & Sheet Metal Co. v. Town of ParishAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1988
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Mroz v. City of TonawandaDistrict Court, W.D. New York · 1998
- Reaves v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1991
- Jeshurin v. Liberty Lines Transit, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1993