Widger v. Cent. Sch. Dist. No. 1 of the Towns of Ellicottville, 219 N.E.2d 425 (N.Y. 1966). · Go Syfert
Search
Widger v. Cent. Sch. Dist. No. 1 of the Towns of Ellicottville, 219 N.E.2d 425 (N.Y. 1966). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
18 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Johnson v. Rockland County BOCES (nysd, 2022-09-28)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Johnson v. Rockland County BOCES
S.D.N.Y. · 2022 · confidence medium
No. 1, 219 N.E.2d 425, 426 (N.Y. 1966)). b.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Grasso v. Schenectady County Public Library
N.Y. App. Div. · 2006 · confidence medium
No. 1, 18 NY2d 646, 647-648 [1966]; Matter of Deposit Cent.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Parochial Bus Systems, Inc. v. Board of Education
NY · 1983 · confidence medium
No. 1, supra, at p 648), “all that is required is substantial compliance with the statute” regarding the degree of descriptive detail in a notice of claim (Matter of Baker [Board of Educ.], 309 NY 551, 557 ), we have, nevertheless, always insisted that statutory requirements mandating notification to the proper public body or official must be fulfilled.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Jack E. Widger, Appellant,
v.
Central School District No.1 of the Towns of Ellicottville, Great Valley, East Otto, Franklinville, Humphrey and Mansfield, Et Al., Respondents
New York Court of Appeals.
Jul 7, 1966.
219 N.E.2d 425
1966 N.Y. LEXIS 1216
Roger E. Pyle for appellant., Jeremiah J. Moriarty for respondents.
Desmond, Fuld, Van Vooehis, Bueke, Scileppi, Beegan, Keating.
Cited by 11 opinions  |  Published

Memorandum. The order appealed from should be reversed insofar as it dismisses the causes of action pleaded against the school district. The second amended complaint states causes of action against the school board because at the time the second amended complaint was served both, the period in which a notice of claim had to be filed and the 30-day period in which the claim could have been settled without an action had passed (Education[*648] Law, § 3813; General Municipal Law, § 50-i). The notice of claim sufficiently informed the school district of the nature of the claim, of the time when, the place where and the manner in which the claim arose (Education Law, § 3813; General Municipal Law, § 50-e; see Rivero v. City of New York, 290 N. Y. 204, 208).

Chief Judge Desmond and Judg'es Fuld, Van Vooehis, Bueke, Scileppi, Beegan and Keating concur.

Order reversed, with costs in this court and in the Appellate Division, and matter remitted to Special Term for further proceedings in accordance with the Memorandum herein.