Sharp v. Cahn, 30 A.D.3d 357 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006). · Go Syfert
Search
Sharp v. Cahn, 30 A.D.3d 357 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 4× by 4 distinct cases, 2009–2017 · 2 courts · …general municipal law 50-e makes unauthorized an action against individuals who have not been named in a notice of claim at p. 358 ⚠ not in text
34 citation events (34 in the last 25 years) across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: DiRuzza v. Lanza (ca2, 2017-03-30)
Treatment trajectory · 2009 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2009 2017 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 12 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) DiRuzza v. Lanza
2d Cir. · 2017 · signal: compare · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
general municipal law 50-e makes unauthorized an action against individuals who have not been named in a notice of claim....
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wiggins v. City of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 2021 · confidence medium
The court noted that "[f]ailing to examine the merits of [p]laintiff's claim here risks perpetuating the faults of a system which already failed him once." However[*2], the court found that it was nonetheless "constrained by precedent to find that [p]laintiff's failure to name the Detectives in the Notice of Claim merits dismissal against them." Indeed, our prior decisions do hold that, as a prerequisite to suing individual municipal employee defendants pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e, employee defendants must be named in a notice of claim ( see Alvarez v City of New York , 134 AD3d …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wiggins v. City of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 2021 · confidence medium
The court noted that "[f]ailing to examine the merits of [p]laintiff's claim here risks perpetuating the faults of a system which already failed him once." However[*2], the court found that it was nonetheless "constrained by precedent to find that [p]laintiff's failure to name the Detectives in the Notice of Claim merits dismissal against them." Indeed, our prior decisions do hold that, as a prerequisite to suing individual municipal employee defendants pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e, employee defendants must be named in a notice of claim ( see Alvarez v City of New York , 134 AD3d …
examined Cited as authority (rule) Alvarez v. City of New York (4×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
The motion court granted the motion and, citing White and Rattner , we affirmed that portion of the decision with respect to the dismissal of the state law claims against the prosecutor defendants ( Tannenbaum at 358) .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kapon v. Koch
NY · 2014 · confidence medium
Ctr., Inc., 29 AD3d 104, 111 [1st Dept 2006]; Catalano v Moreland, 299 AD2d 881, 882 [4th Dept 2002] [in dicta, applying “material and necessary” standard to CPLR 3101 (a) (4)]; see also Hauzinger v Hauzinger, 43 AD3d 1289 , 1290 [4th Dept 2007], affd 10 NY3d 923 [2008]; Schroder v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., 249 AD2d 69, 70 [1st Dept 1998], but see Tannenbaum v City of New York, 30 AD3d 357, 358-359 [1st Dept 2006] [requiring a showing that information could not be obtained from another source]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) GOODWIN, ROBETTE v. PRETORIUS, M.D., RICHARD
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
The decision in Rew cited only Cropsey for that proposition, and the decision in Cropsey cited only Tannenbaum v City of New York ( 30 AD3d 357, 358 [2006]) in support of its statement to the same effect.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cleghorne v. City of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Furthermore, the action cannot proceed against the individual defendants because they were not named in the notice of claim (see General Municipal Law § 50-e; Tannenbaum v City of New York, 30 AD3d 357, 358 [1st Dept 2006]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cleghorne v. City of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Furthermore, the action cannot proceed against the individual defendants because they were not named in the notice of claim (see General Municipal Law § 50-e; Tannenbaum v City of New York, 30 AD3d 357, 358 [1st Dept 2006]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Troy Sand & Gravel Co. v. Town of Nassau
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · confidence medium
Relying upon Dioguardi , the First Department now requires a showing of “special circumstances or that the information sought was relevant and could not be obtained from other sources” (Tannenbaum v City of New York, 30 AD3d 357, 358-359 [2006]; see Reich v Reich, 36 AD3d 506, 507 [2007]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kooper v. Kooper
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · confidence medium
Subsequent to the Fourth Department’s decision in Catalano , the First Department cited Dioguardi with approval to preclude nonparty depositions in two cases, one of which used the “special circumstances” rubric (Tannenbaum v City of New York, 30 AD3d 357, 358 [2006]), and both premising denial of the requested disclosure on the failure to show, inter alia, that the information was unobtainable from other sources (id. at 359; see Reich v Reich, 36 AD3d 506, 507 [2007]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cropsey v. County of Orleans Industrial Development Agency
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
Further, “General Municipal Law § 50-e makes unauthorized an action against individuals who have not been named in a notice of claim” where such a notice of claim is required by law (Tannenbaum v City of New York, 30 AD3d 357, 358 [2006]), and here a notice of claim against DeRoller in his capacity as an agent for COIDA was required.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Williams v. City of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · signal: compare · confidence medium
While we acknowledge a split in appellate authority on the issue, we have held that the plain language of General Municipal Law § 50-e (2) does not require a notice of claim to “[list] the names of the individuals who allegedly committed the wrongdoing” (Blake v City of New York, 148 AD3d at 1106 ; compare Pierce v Hickey, 129 AD3d 1287, 1289 [2015], with Alvarez v City of New York, 134 AD3d 599 [2015], and Tannenbaum v City of New York, 30 AD3d 357, 358 [2006]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Michael Sharp
v.
Neil R. Cahn
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 13, 2006.
30 A.D.3d 357
Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 88%
Citer courts: Second Circuit (1)

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition and mandamus, inter alia, to prohibit certain Justices of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, and certain attorneys from taking part in the actions entitled Sharp v Sharp pending in that court under index No. 27393/99 and Newman & Cahn, LLP v Sharp, pending in that court under index No. 24209/03.

Motion by the New York State respondents, joined in by the other respondents, to dismiss the proceeding.

Ordered that the motion is granted; and it is further,

Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The petition, insofar as asserted against the petitioner’s former attorneys Neil R. Cahn and Newman & Cahn, LLR must be denied (see CPLR 7802).

With regard to the other respondents, “[b]ecause of its extraordinary nature, prohibition is available only where there is a clear legal right, and then only when a court—in cases where judicial authority is challenged—acts or threatens to act either without jurisdiction or in excess of its authorized powers” (Matter of Holtzman v Goldman, 71 NY2d 564, 569 [1988]; see Matter of Rush v Mordue, 68 NY2d 348, 352 [1986]). Similarly, the extraordinary remedy of mandamus will lie only to compel the performance of a ministerial act, and only when there exists a clear legal right to the relief sought (see Matter of Legal Aid Socy. of Sullivan County v Scheinman, 53 NY2d 12, 16 [1981]). The petitioner here has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Prudenti, EJ., Florio, Krausman and Mastro, JJ., concur.