Andrusz v. Town of Lancaster
Opinion of the Court
Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court
The court erred, however, in denying that part of defendants’ motion seeking dismissal of the complaint insofar as it seeks money damages. It is undisputed that plaintiffs did not file a notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law §§ 50-e and 50-i. We reject the argument of plaintiffs that their demand for money damages is merely “subordinate and incidental” to their demand for injunctive relief (Dutcher v Town of Shandaken, 97 AD2d 922, 923; see, Robertson v Town of Carmel, 276 AD2d 543, 544; American Pen Corp. v City of New York, 266 AD2d 87; Serkil, L. L. C. v City of Troy, 259 AD2d 920, 921, lv denied 93 NY2d 811). We therefore modify the order by granting defendants’ motion in part and dismissing the complaint insofar as it seeks money damages (see, Robertson v Town of Carmel, supra, at 544; American Pen Corp. v City of New York, supra, at 88). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Notaro, J. — Dismiss Pleading.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Green, Wisner, Kehoe and Burns, JJ.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.