Commissioners of the State Insurance Fund v. Board of Education
Cases that cite this one
4 later published cases cite this decision.
- Palmieri v. Town of Babylon (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- Shannon v. Westchester County Health Care Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- Silvernail v. Enlarged City School District of Middletown (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- Rondout Electric, Inc. v. Dover Union Free School District (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
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 unpaid insurance premiums, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County
Ordered that the order is modified, by adding a provision thereto deeming the complaint amended to include an allegation of compliance with Education Law § 3813 (1); as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the plaintiff.
The record reveals that, on May 9, 2001, the plaintiff served the defendant Board of Education, Arlington Central School District No. 1 with a verified written notice of claim, which included a demand for payment of a retrospective premium adjustment billed on March 13, 2001. It is undisputed that the defendant did not pay or adjust the May 9, 2001, claim prior to the commencement of this action over 30 days later. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff’s failure to allege in its complaint that it complied with Education Law § 3813 (1) by presenting the defendant with a notice of claim within three months after its claim for the premium billed on March 13, 2001, accrued, and that more than 30 days had elapsed since presentment without adjustment or payment of the claim, is a procedural defect which may be corrected by amendment of the pleading (see Rushmore v Hempstead Police Dept., 211 AD2d 776; Bravo v City of New York, 122 AD2d 761; Runyan v Board of Educ., 121 AD2d 708; Leith Constr. Co. v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 75 AD2d 615; Carthage Cent. School Dist. No. 1 v Reddick & Sons of Gouverneur, 67 AD2d 808). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to dismiss the cause of action arising from the retrospective premium adjustment of March 13, 2001. Furthermore, we deem the complaint amended to allege the necessary compliance with Education Law § 3813 (1). Krausman, J.P., McGinity, Schmidt and Mastro, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.