Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000

Hassett-Belfer Senior Housing, L. L. C. v. Town of North Hempstead

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided March 13, 2000

270 A.D.2d 306; 705 N.Y.S.2d 233; 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2781

Cases that cite this one

7 later published cases cite this decision.

Hassett-Belfer Senior Housing, L. L. C. v. Town of North Hempstead (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
U.S. Bank N.A. v. Kahn Prop. Owner, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
Greater Bright Light Home Care Services, Inc. v. Jeffries-El (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
Gym Door Repairs, Inc. v. Astoria General Contracting Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
Tornheim v. Blue & White Food Products Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
Hochman v. LaRea (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Glassman v. ProHealth Ambulatory Surgery Center, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

—In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court,- Nassau County (Winick, J.), dated August 18, 1998, which granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint and denied its cross motion, inter alia, for leave to file a late notice of claim.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The failure to serve a notice of claim in compliance with *307Town Law § 65 (3) compelled the dismissal of the action (see, Town Law § 65 [3]; Parochial Bus Sys. v Board of Educ., 60 NY2d 539). The plaintiffs contention that service of the verified complaint upon the Town Clerk was equivalent, to the service of a verified notice of claim is unpreserved for appellate review (see, Dannhauser v County of Suffolk, 216 AD2d 514, 515), and, in any event, without merit (see, Holzmacher, McClendon & Murrell v Town of E. Hampton, 204 AD2d 604; Schweigert v Town of Newfane, 152 AD2d 995; see also, Davidson v Bronx Mun. Hosp., 64 NY2d 59, 61-62; Davis v City of New York, 250 AD2d 368, 369-370).

The court properly denied the plaintiffs cross motion, inter alia, for leave to file a late notice of claim to recover damages for conversion. A cause of action alleging conversion cannot be maintained where, as here, damages are being sought merely for breach of contract, and no wrong independent of the contract claim has been demonstrated (see, Wolf v National Council of Young Israel, 246 AD2d 416; Priolo Communications v MCI Telecommunications Corp., 248 AD2d 453; MBL Life Assur. Corp. v 555 Realty Co., 240 AD2d 375, 376-377; Peters Griffin Woodward v WCSC, Inc., 88 AD2d 883).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. Altman, J. P., Friedmann, Krausman and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.