Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003

Scalzo v. County of Suffolk

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided June 16, 2003

306 A.D.2d 397; 760 N.Y.S.2d 879

Cases that cite this one

9 later published cases cite this decision.

Ross v. County of Suffolk (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
Cardella v. Suffolk County Police Dept. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
Boone v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Kemp v. County of Suffolk (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Vartanian v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
Southern Tier Plastics, Inc. v. County of Broome (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
Donna October v. Town of Green-Burgh (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
Bernoudy v. County of Westchester (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
Zapata v. County of Suffolk (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 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 *398since 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.

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