49 New York opinions name it 3 courts 1947–2026 7 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
McCulloch v. Town of Milangreen2 sentences2023Under Town Law § 65(3), "no action shall be maintained against a town upon or arising out of a contract entered into by the town . . . unless a written verified claim shall have been filed with the town clerk within six months after the cause of action shall have accrued." "[I]n contrast to other notice statutes, Town Law § 65(3) contains no provision allowing the court to excuse noncompliance with its requirements" ( McCulloch v Town of Milan , 74 AD3d at 1035 [internal quotation marks omitted]). 2013Town Law § 65 (3) provides that no action shall be maintained against a town “upon or arising out of a contract entered into by the town unless ... a written verified claim shall have been filed with the town clerk within six months after the cause of action shall have accrued.” “The filing of a notice of claim is thus a condition precedent to the maintenance of an action against a town arising out of the contractual relationship between a plaintiff and a town” (McCulloch v Town of Milan, 74 AD3d 1034, 1035 [2010]). | 4 | 4 |
Parochial Bus Systems, Inc. v. Board of Educationgreen2 sentences2026We have explained that where the Legislature "has spoken unequivocally" that filing a notice of claim is required, as it has done here, compliance with the statute should be strictly enforced to effectuate the Legislature's intent ( Parochial Bus Sys., Inc. , 60 NY2d at 548-549 ; see also Thomann v City of Rochester , 256 NY 165, 172 [1931] [where "(t)he Legislature has said that a particular form of notice . . . shall be a prerequisite to the right to sue . . . (t)he courts are without power to substitute something else"]). [*3] FPW's contention that filing a notice of claim was unnecessary b 2004Education Law § 3813 (1) provides that no action shall lie against a school district unless “a written verified claim upon which such action or special proceeding is founded was presented to the governing body of said district or school within three months after the accrual of such claim.” While there is some flexibility in the type of notice permitted, the Court of Appeals has cautioned “that [the] statutory requirements mandating notification to the proper public body or official must be fulfilled” (Parochial Bus Sys. v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 60 NY2d 539, 547 [1983]; see Matter of S | 3 | 5 |
Micro-Link, LLC v. Town of Amherstgreen2 sentences2016Corp. v Town of Babylon, 30 AD2d 962 [1968]; see also Micro-Link, LLC v Town of Amherst, 73 AD3d 1426, 1427 [2010]). 2013Plaintiff, relying on Micro-Link, LLC v Town of Amherst ( 73 AD3d 1426, 1427 [2010]), contends that the second cause of action did not accrue until the claim for payment of delay damages was actually or constructively rejected by defendant. | 3 | 4 |
ADC Contracting & Construction, Inc. v. Town of Southamptongreen2 sentences2012“The filing of a notice of claim is thus a condition precedent to the maintenance of an action against a town arising out of the contractual relationship between a plaintiff and a town” (McCulloch v Town of Milan, 74 AD3d at 1035 ; see Mohl v Town of Riverhead, 62 AD3d.969, 969 [2009]; ADC Contr. & Constr, Inc. v Town of Southampton, 45 AD3d 614, 615 [2007]). 2009“A properly verified notice of claim is a condition precedent to maintaining an action to recover damages for breach of contract against a town” (ADC Contr. & Constr., Inc. v Town of Southampton, 45 AD3d 614, 615 [2007]; see Town Law § 65 [3]; Walter H. | 2 | 2 |
County of Rockland v. Town of Orangetowngreen2 sentences2010Town Law § 65 (3) provides that no action shall be maintained against a town “upon or arising out of a contract entered into by the town unless ... a written verified claim shall have been filed with the town clerk within six months after the cause of action shall have accrued.” The filing of a notice of claim is thus a condition precedent to the maintenance of an action against a town arising out of the contractual relationship between a plaintiff and a town (see Mohl v Town of Riverhead, 62 AD3d 969 [2009]; Trager v Town of Clifton Park, 303 AD2d 875, 876 [2003]; County of Rockland v Town of 1996Town Law § 180 provides that "[n]o action shall be maintained against a fire district upon or arising out of a contract entered into by the fire district * * * unless a written verified claim shall have been filed with the fire district secretary within six months after the cause of action shall have accrued.” Such a filing is a condition precedent to the commencement of an action against a fire district (cf., County of Rockland v Town of Orangetown, 189 AD2d 1058, 1059 [interpreting an analogous provision of Town Law § 65 (3)]; accord, Franza’s Universal Scrap Metal v Town of Islip, 89 AD2d 8 | 2 | 2 |
Trison Contracting, Inc. v. Town of Huntingtongreen2 sentences2023Town Law § 65(3) provides that "no action shall be maintained against a town upon or arising out of a contract entered into by the town . . . unless a written verified claim shall have been filed with the town clerk within six months after the cause of action shall have accrued." "A contractor's cause of action accrues when it should have viewed its claim as actually or constructively rejected" ( Trison Contr. v Town of Huntington , 227 AD2d 397, 398 ; see INFORM Applications, Inc. v Town of Brookhaven , 136 AD3d 670, 671 ). 2016Town Law § 65 (3) provides that “no action shall be maintained against a town upon or arising out of a contract entered into by the town . . . unless a written verified claim shall have been filed with the town clerk within six months after the cause of action shall have accrued.” “A contractor’s cause of action accrues when it should have viewed its claim as actually or constructively rejected” (Trison Contr. v Town of Huntington, *672 227 AD2d 397, 398 [1996]; see Schacker Real Estate Corp. v Town of Babylon, 278 AD2d 221, 222 [2000]; Amityville Dev. | 1 | 3 |
Fontana v. Fontanagreen2 sentences2000Corp., 232 AD2d 636 ; Franza’s Universal Scrap Metal v Town of Islip, 89 AD2d 843, 844 ; Wa-Wa-Yanda, Inc. v Town of Islip, 25 AD2d 762 , affd 21 NY2d 1013 ). 1996Town Law § 180 provides that "[n]o action shall be maintained against a fire district upon or arising out of a contract entered into by the fire district * * * unless a written verified claim shall have been filed with the fire district secretary within six months after the cause of action shall have accrued.” Such a filing is a condition precedent to the commencement of an action against a fire district (cf., County of Rockland v Town of Orangetown, 189 AD2d 1058, 1059 [interpreting an analogous provision of Town Law § 65 (3)]; accord, Franza’s Universal Scrap Metal v Town of Islip, 89 AD2d 8 | 1 | 3 |
Thomann v. City of Rochestergreen2 sentences2026We have explained that where the Legislature "has spoken unequivocally" that filing a notice of claim is required, as it has done here, compliance with the statute should be strictly enforced to effectuate the Legislature's intent ( Parochial Bus Sys., Inc. , 60 NY2d at 548-549 ; see also Thomann v City of Rochester , 256 NY 165, 172 [1931] [where "(t)he Legislature has said that a particular form of notice . . . shall be a prerequisite to the right to sue . . . (t)he courts are without power to substitute something else"]). [*3] FPW's contention that filing a notice of claim was unnecessary b 1947As to those claims arising prior and subsequent to September 1, 1945, the statute as to the filing of a written verified claim applies, (Thomann v. City of Rochester, 256 N. Y. 165 .) The form of this action, even were it truly cognizable as one in equity and for incidental law relief, is subject to those provisions. | 1 | 2 |
Varsity Transit, Inc. v. Board of Educationgreen2 sentences2026The text of CPLR 9802 applies broadly to claims and counterclaims alike: "no action shall be maintained against the village upon or arising out of a contract of the village unless a written verified claim shall have been filed with the village clerk within one year after the cause of action shall have accrued." This language, "[o]n its face, . . . makes no exception to the notice rule for contract disputes already in litigation" ( Varsity Tr. , 5 NY3d at 536 [applying Education Law § 3813]). 2026The text of CPLR 9802 applies broadly to claims and counterclaims alike: "no action shall be maintained against the village upon or arising out of a contract of the village unless a written verified claim shall have been filed with the village clerk within one year after the cause of action shall have accrued." This language, "[o]n its face, . . . makes no exception to the notice rule for contract disputes already in litigation" ( Varsity Tr. , 5 NY3d at 536 [applying Education Law § 3813]). | 1 | 2 |
Mohl v. Town of Riverheadgreen2 sentences2023Town Law § 65 (3) requires that a written verified claim be filed with the town clerk "within six months after the cause of action shall have accrued." "[I]n contrast to other notice statutes, Town Law § 65 (3) contains no provision allowing the court to excuse noncompliance with its requirements" ( Mohl v Town of Riverhead , 62 AD3d 969, 970 [2d Dept 2009] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see generally Putrelo Constr. 2010Town Law § 65 (3) provides that no action shall be maintained against a town “upon or arising out of a contract entered into by the town unless ... a written verified claim shall have been filed with the town clerk within six months after the cause of action shall have accrued.” The filing of a notice of claim is thus a condition precedent to the maintenance of an action against a town arising out of the contractual relationship between a plaintiff and a town (see Mohl v Town of Riverhead, 62 AD3d 969 [2009]; Trager v Town of Clifton Park, 303 AD2d 875, 876 [2003]; County of Rockland v Town of | 1 | 2 |
INFORM Applications, Inc. v. Town of Brookhavengreen1 sentence2023Town Law § 65(3) provides that "no action shall be maintained against a town upon or arising out of a contract entered into by the town . . . unless a written verified claim shall have been filed with the town clerk within six months after the cause of action shall have accrued." "A contractor's cause of action accrues when it should have viewed its claim as actually or constructively rejected" ( Trison Contr. v Town of Huntington , 227 AD2d 397, 398 ; see INFORM Applications, Inc. v Town of Brookhaven , 136 AD3d 670, 671 ). | 1 | 1 |
Sheryll v. L & J Hairstylists of Plainview, Ltd.green1 sentence2023Corp. , 232 AD2d 636, 636 ; see Shade Tree Contr. v Hicksville Fire Dist. , 272 AD2d 603, 603 ; cf. Gorman v Town of Huntington , 12 NY3d 275 ). | 1 | 1 |
Schacker Real Estate Corp. v. Town of Babylongreen1 sentence2016Town Law § 65 (3) provides that “no action shall be maintained against a town upon or arising out of a contract entered into by the town . . . unless a written verified claim shall have been filed with the town clerk within six months after the cause of action shall have accrued.” “A contractor’s cause of action accrues when it should have viewed its claim as actually or constructively rejected” (Trison Contr. v Town of Huntington, *672 227 AD2d 397, 398 [1996]; see Schacker Real Estate Corp. v Town of Babylon, 278 AD2d 221, 222 [2000]; Amityville Dev. | 1 | 1 |
Lech v. City of New Yorkgreen1 sentence2013Education Law § 3813 (1) provides: “No action or special proceeding, for any cause whatever . . . shall be prosecuted or maintained against any school district, board of education, [or] board of cooperative educational services ... or any officer of a school district, board of education . . . unless it shall appear by and as an allegation in the complaint or necessary moving papers that a written verified claim upon which such action . . . is founded was presented to the governing body of said district . . . within three months after the accrual of such claim, and that the . . . body having th | 1 | 1 |
In re the Claim of Passarelligreen1 sentence2012Under CPLR 9802, “no action shall be maintained against the village upon or arising out of a contract of the village unless the same shall be commenced within eighteen months after the cause of action therefor shall have accrued, nor unless a written verified claim shall have been filed with the village clerk within one year after the cause of action shall have accrued.” Further, CPLR 9802 provides, “no other action shall be maintained against the village unless the same shall be commenced within one year after the cause of action therefor shall have accrued, nor unless a notice of claim shall | 1 | 1 |
Trager v. Town of Clifton Parkgreen1 sentence2010Town Law § 65 (3) provides that no action shall be maintained against a town “upon or arising out of a contract entered into by the town unless ... a written verified claim shall have been filed with the town clerk within six months after the cause of action shall have accrued.” The filing of a notice of claim is thus a condition precedent to the maintenance of an action against a town arising out of the contractual relationship between a plaintiff and a town (see Mohl v Town of Riverhead, 62 AD3d 969 [2009]; Trager v Town of Clifton Park, 303 AD2d 875, 876 [2003]; County of Rockland v Town of | 1 | 1 |
| Ruocco v. Doylegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Clune v. Garden City Union Free School Districtgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Stevensgreen | 1 | 1 |
| SBR Roofing, Inc. v. Richfield Springs Central School Districtgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Lancaster Towers Associates v. Assessor of Town of Lancastergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Stevens v. Board of Education of McGraw Central School Districtgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Chalasani v. Neumangreen | 1 | 1 |
| Augat v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Hart v. East Plaza, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| Caruso v. Incorporated Village of Sloatsburgyellow | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Elmont Fire District v. Lapeka Construction Corp.
green
2 sentences2023Corp. , 232 AD2d 636, 636 ; see Shade Tree Contr. v Hicksville Fire Dist. , 272 AD2d 603, 603 ; cf. Gorman v Town of Huntington , 12 NY3d 275 ). 2000Corp., 232 AD2d 636 ; Franza’s Universal Scrap Metal v Town of Islip, 89 AD2d 843, 844 ; Wa-Wa-Yanda, Inc. v Town of Islip, 25 AD2d 762 , affd 21 NY2d 1013 ). | 2 | 2000–2023 |
Wa-Wa-Yanda, Inc. v. Town of Islip
green
2 sentences2000Corp., 232 AD2d 636 ; Franza’s Universal Scrap Metal v Town of Islip, 89 AD2d 843, 844 ; Wa-Wa-Yanda, Inc. v Town of Islip, 25 AD2d 762 , affd 21 NY2d 1013 ). 1996Town Law § 180 provides that "[n]o action shall be maintained against a fire district upon or arising out of a contract entered into by the fire district * * * unless a written verified claim shall have been filed with the fire district secretary within six months after the cause of action shall have accrued.” Such a filing is a condition precedent to the commencement of an action against a fire district (cf., County of Rockland v Town of Orangetown, 189 AD2d 1058, 1059 [interpreting an analogous provision of Town Law § 65 (3)]; accord, Franza’s Universal Scrap Metal v Town of Islip, 89 AD2d 8 | 2 | 1996–2000 |
Wa-Wa Yanda, Inc. v. Town of Islip
neutral
2 sentences2000Corp., 232 AD2d 636 ; Franza’s Universal Scrap Metal v Town of Islip, 89 AD2d 843, 844 ; Wa-Wa-Yanda, Inc. v Town of Islip, 25 AD2d 762 , affd 21 NY2d 1013 ). 1996Town Law § 180 provides that "[n]o action shall be maintained against a fire district upon or arising out of a contract entered into by the fire district * * * unless a written verified claim shall have been filed with the fire district secretary within six months after the cause of action shall have accrued.” Such a filing is a condition precedent to the commencement of an action against a fire district (cf., County of Rockland v Town of Orangetown, 189 AD2d 1058, 1059 [interpreting an analogous provision of Town Law § 65 (3)]; accord, Franza’s Universal Scrap Metal v Town of Islip, 89 AD2d 8 | 2 | 1996–2000 |
Stage v. Village of Owego
green
2 sentences1996Compliance with the CPLR 9802, which requires timely filing of a written verified claim, is a condition precedent to be pleaded and proved by the party bringing a breach of contract action against a village (see, Salesian Socy. v Village of Ellenville, 41 NY2d 521 , 523; Stage v Village of Owego, 39 NY2d 1017 , affg on mem below 48 AD2d 985 ). 1977Absent special circumstances, failure to allege compliance with this provision requires dismissal of the complaint (Alexander v Village of Tupper Lake, 19 AD2d 939 ; see Salesian Soc. v Village of Ellenville, 41 NY2d 521 ; Stage v Village of Owego, 48 AD2d 985 , affd 39 NY2d 1017 ; but see Matter of Caruso v Incorporated Vil. of Sloatsburg, 28 AD2d 679 ). | 2 | 1977–1996 |
Stage v. Village of Owego
green
2 sentences1996Compliance with the CPLR 9802, which requires timely filing of a written verified claim, is a condition precedent to be pleaded and proved by the party bringing a breach of contract action against a village (see, Salesian Socy. v Village of Ellenville, 41 NY2d 521 , 523; Stage v Village of Owego, 39 NY2d 1017 , affg on mem below 48 AD2d 985 ). 1977Absent special circumstances, failure to allege compliance with this provision requires dismissal of the complaint (Alexander v Village of Tupper Lake, 19 AD2d 939 ; see Salesian Soc. v Village of Ellenville, 41 NY2d 521 ; Stage v Village of Owego, 48 AD2d 985 , affd 39 NY2d 1017 ; but see Matter of Caruso v Incorporated Vil. of Sloatsburg, 28 AD2d 679 ). | 2 | 1977–1996 |
Domfort v. Town of Fallsburgh
neutral
2 sentences1977Absent special circumstances, failure to allege compliance with this provision requires dismissal of the complaint (Alexander v Village of Tupper Lake, 19 AD2d 939 ; see Salesian Soc. v Village of Ellenville, 41 NY2d 521 ; Stage v Village of Owego, 48 AD2d 985 , affd 39 NY2d 1017 ; but see Matter of Caruso v Incorporated Vil. of Sloatsburg, 28 AD2d 679 ). 1975In the case of Alexander v Village of Tupper Lake ( 19 AD2d 939 ) this court recognized that the notice require ments of section 341-b were a condition precedent to the establishment of a cause of action by requiring that it be alleged in a complaint against a village. | 2 | 1975–1977 |
HP Capital, LLC v. Village of Sleepy Hollow
green
1 sentence2024Pursuant to CPLR 9802, "no action shall be maintained against the village upon or arising out of a contract of the village unless the same shall be commenced within eighteen months after the cause of action therefor shall have accrued, nor unless a written verified claim shall have been filed with the village clerk within one year after the cause of action shall have accrued" ( see HP Capital, LLC v Village of Sleepy Hollow , 68 AD3d 928, 929 ). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Gorman v. Town of Huntington
green
1 sentence2023Corp. , 232 AD2d 636, 636 ; see Shade Tree Contr. v Hicksville Fire Dist. , 272 AD2d 603, 603 ; cf. Gorman v Town of Huntington , 12 NY3d 275 ). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Brown v. City of New York
green
1 sentence2023Under General Municipal Law § 50-e, "[a] timely and sufficient notice of claim is a condition precedent to asserting a tort claim against a municipality or public benefit corporation" ( Matter of Johnson v County of Suffolk , 167 AD3d 742 , 743 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see General Municipal Law § 50-e[1][a]; Brown v City of New York , 95 NY2d 389, 392-393 ). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Putrelo Construction Co. v. Town of Marcy
green
1 sentence2023Co. v Town of Marcy , 105 AD3d 1406 , 1407 [4th Dept 2013]). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Dreger v. New York State Thruway Authority
green
1 sentence2022Pursuant to CPLR 9802, "no action shall be maintained against the village upon or arising out of a contract of the village . . . unless a written verified claim shall have been filed with the village clerk within one year after the cause of action shall have accrued." "'[S]tatutory requirements conditioning suit [against a governmental entity] must be strictly construed'" ( Varsity Tr., Inc. v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y. , 5 NY3d 532, 536 , quoting Dreger v New York State Thruway Auth. , 81 NY2d 721, 724 ). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Anak Wine & Liquor Co. v. New York State Liquor Authority
green
1 sentence2016Corp. v Town of Babylon, 30 AD2d 962 [1968]; see also Micro-Link, LLC v Town of Amherst, 73 AD3d 1426, 1427 [2010]). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Aurora Loan Services, LLC v. Thomas
green
1 sentence2012Since the plaintiffs clearly did not comply with CPLR 9802, that branch of their cross motion which was for leave to serve an amended complaint alleging compliance was properly denied, since the allegation of compliance was patently devoid of merit (see Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Thomas, 70 AD3d 986 [2010]). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Martz v. Incorporated Village of Valley Stream
neutral
1 sentence2012Stream, 210 AD2d 205 [1994]). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| Public Improvements, Inc. v. Board of Education green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Calandro neutral | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Chanecka v. Board of Education green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Hygrade Insulators, Inc. v. Board of Education, Middle Country Central School District green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Troy Towers Redevelopment Co. v. City of Troy green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. City School District green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| MATTER OF TROY TOWERS REDEVELOPMENT CO., INC. v. City of Troy green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Peltz v. Peltz green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| Solow v. Liebman green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Montauk-Caribbean Airways, Inc. v. Hope green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| E. Williamson Roofing & Sheet Metal Co. v. Town of Parish green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Planet Construction Corp. v. Board of Education green | 1 | 1984–1984 |
| P. J. Panzeca, Inc. v. Board of Education green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Flanagan v. Board of Education green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| People v. Medina green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| Serravillo v. New York City Transit Authority green | 1 | 1978–1978 |
| In re the Arbitration between the Board of Education & Wager Construction Corp. green | 1 | 1978–1978 |
| New York State Labor Relations Board v. Holland Laundry, Inc. green | 1 | 1974–1974 |
| In re the Arbitration between Board of Education, Union Free School District No. 7 & Heckler Electric Co. neutral | 1 | 1960–1960 |
| Boston Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Insurance Agents' International Union (Afl-Cio) green | 1 | 1960–1960 |
| Cohen v. Erdle neutral | 1 | 1958–1958 |
| Arnold v. . Village of North Tarrytown neutral | 1 | 1949–1949 |
| Arnold v. Village of North Tarrytown green | 1 | 1949–1949 |
| Bush v. City of Jamestown neutral | 1 | 1947–1947 |
| Schenker v. Village of Liberty green | 1 | 1947–1947 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.