Scalzo v. Cnty. of Suffolk, 306 A.D.2d 397 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003). · Go Syfert
Search
Scalzo v. Cnty. of Suffolk, 306 A.D.2d 397 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
10 citation events (10 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Boone v. City of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Accordingly, the plaintiffs subsequent commencement of the action against the NYCHA without rescheduling the examination warranted dismissal of the complaint insofar as asserted against that defendant (see Vartanian v City of New York, 48 AD3d 673, 674 [2008]; Bernoudy v County of Westchester, 40 AD3d at 897 ; Scalzo v County of Suffolk, 306 AD2d 397, 398 [2003]; Best v City of New York, 97 AD2d 389 [1983], affd 61 NY2d 847 [1984]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kemp v. County of Suffolk
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
Auth. [MTA], 44 AD3d at 629 ; Zapata v County of Suffolk, 23 AD3d at 554 ; Scalzo v County of Suffolk, 306 AD2d 397, 397-398 [2003]; Arcila v Incorporated Vil. of Freeport, 231 AD2d at 661 ; Bailey v New York City Health & Hosps.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Southern Tier Plastics, Inc. v. County of Broome
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · confidence medium
Auth., 216 AD2d 258, 258 [1995]; McCormack v Port Washington Union Free School Dist., 214 AD2d 546, 546 [1995]; but see Bernoudy v County of Westchester, 40 AD3d 896, 897 [2007]; Scalzo v County of Suffolk, 306 AD2d 397, 397-398 [2003]; Wells v City of New York, 254 AD2d 121 , 121 [1998], lv dismissed 92 NY2d 1046 [1999], cert denied 527 US 1012 [1999]; Bailey v New York City Health & Hosps.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Vartanian v. City of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · confidence medium
The plaintiff does not dispute the NYCTA’s assertion that an oral examination pursuant to Public Authorities Law § 1212 (5) was adjourned six times at her request, and there is no evidence that she rescheduled a new examination date prior to the commencement of this action (see Scalzo v County of Suffolk, 306 AD2d 397, 398 [2003]; Matter of Pelekanos v City of New York, 264 AD2d 446, 447 [1999]; Best v City of New York, 97 AD2d 389 [1983], affd 61 NY2d 847 [1984]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bernoudy v. County of Westchester
N.Y. App. Div. · 2007 · confidence medium
The Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, since the hearing pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h was adjourned at the plaintiffs request, and he commenced this action without rescheduling a new hearing date after the last adjournment (see Scalzo v County of Suffolk, 306 AD2d 397, 398 [2003]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Frank Scalzo, Jr.
v.
County of Suffolk
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 16, 2003.
306 A.D.2d 397
Cited by 9 opinions  |  Published

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Emerson, J.), dated July 22, 2002, which granted the motion of the defendants County of Suffolk and Sheriff of the County of Suffolk to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them based on his failure to comply with General Municipal Law § 50-h.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A party who has failed to comply with a demand for examination served pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h (2) is precluded from commencing an action against a municipality (see General Municipal Law § 50-h [5]; Heins v Board of Trustees of Inc. Vil. of Greenport, 237 AD2d 570 [1997]; Arcila v Incorporated Vil. of Freeport, 231 AD2d 660, 661 [1996]; Bailey v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 191 AD2d 606 [1993]; cf. Matter of Johnson v City of Yonkers, 262 AD2d 563 [1999]). Here, the Supreme Court properly granted the motion of the defendants County of Suffolk and Sheriff of the County of Suffolk to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them[*398] since a General Municipal Law § 50-h hearing was adjourned at the plaintiff’s request, and the plaintiff commenced this action without rescheduling a new hearing date after the last adjournment (see Arcila v Incorporated Vil. of Freeport, supra; Bailey v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., supra).

The plaintiff’s remaining contention is without merit. Smith, J.P., S. Miller, Crane and Cozier, JJ., concur.