Citation Numbers: 57 A.D.3d 928, 869 N.Y.2d 802
Filed Date: 12/30/2008
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/1/2024
Thus, the service of a timely notice of claim is a condition precedent to a claim against a school district on an action alleging breach of contract or promissory estoppel based on a contract (see Power Cooling, Inc. v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 48 AD3d 536, 537 [2008]; Lenz Hardware, Inc. v Board of Educ. of Van Hornesville-Owen D. Young Cent. School Dist., 24 AD3d 1278, 1279 [2005]; H. Verby Co. v Carle Place Union Free School Dist., 5 AD3d 730 [2004]). Moreover, compliance with this condition precedent must be alleged in the complaint (see Education Law § 3813 [1]; H. Verby Co. v Carle Place Union Free School Dist., 5 AD3d at 731).
The plaintiffs notice of claim was not served until more than three months after the accrual of his claims. Inasmuch as the plaintiff could not allege in his complaint that a written verified claim had been presented to the Board of Education of Roosevelt Union Free School District within three months of its accrual, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint (see Clune v Garden City Union Free School Dist., 34 AD3d 618, 619-620 [2006]). Fisher, J.E, Angiolillo, Dickerson and Belen, JJ., concur.