Bernoudy v. County of Westchester
Cases that cite this one
12 later published cases cite this decision.
- Ross v. County of Suffolk (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- Palmieri v. Town of Babylon (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- Boone v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- G.D.S. v. Northport-East Northport Union Free School District (District Court, E.D. New York 2012)
- Colon v. Martin (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- Cardella v. Suffolk County Police Dept. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- Doe v. Onondaga County (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Palmieri v. Town of Babylon (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- 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)
- Misek-Falkoff v. Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
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, West-
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
A party who has failed to comply with a demand for examination pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h is precluded from commencing an action against a municipality (see Patterson v Ford, 255 AD2d 373 [1998]; Heins v Board of Trustees of Inc. Vil. of Greenport, 237 AD2d 570 [1997]; Arcila v Incorporated Vil. of Freeport, 231 AD2d 660 [1996]).
The Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, since the hearing pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h was adjourned at the plaintiffs request, and he commenced this action without rescheduling a new hearing date after the last adjournment (see Scalzo v County of Suffolk, 306 AD2d 397, 398 [2003]). Contrary to the plaintiff’s contentions, his incarceration does not constitute an exceptional circumstance excusing his failure to be examined (see Zapata v County of Suffolk, 23 AD3d 553 [2005]; Scalzo u County of Suffolk, supra). Schmidt, J.P., Goldstein, Fisher and Lifson, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.