Caruso v. City of Buffalo Urban Renewal Agency

• Decision Date: 16 March 1990
• Docket Number: No. 1,1
• Parties: Vito J. CARUSO, Respondent-Appellant, v. The CITY OF BUFFALO URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY, the City of Buffalo, and William A. Buyers, Individually and as Commissioner of the Department of Human Resources, Appellants-Respondents, and James D. Griffen, Defendant. Appeal
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 254

553 N.Y.S.2d 254

159 A.D.2d 996

Vito J. CARUSO, Respondent-Appellant, v. The CITY OF BUFFALO URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY, the City of Buffalo, and William A. Buyers, Individually and as Commissioner of the Department of Human Resources, Appellants-Respondents and James D. Griffen, Defendant. Appeal No. 1.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Fourth Department.

March 16, 1990.

Saperston & Day, P.C. by Bruce Zeftel, Buffalo, for appellant-respondent, Buffalo Urban Renewal Agency.

Samuel F. Houston by Susan Wheatley, Buffalo, for appellants-respondents, City of Buffalo and William A. Buyers.

Henry E. Wyman, Buffalo, for respondent-appellant.

Before DOERR, J.P., and BOOMER, GREEN, BALIO and DAVIS, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

The City of Buffalo Urban Renewal Agency (BURA) contends that Supreme Court erred in denying its motion to dismiss or for summary judgment with respect to the complaint in the "First Action". We agree.

The filing of a notice of claim is a condition precedent to a tort action against a public corporation (see, General Municipal Law § 50-e), and compliance with the filing requirement is part of plaintiff's substantive cause of action (E. Williamson Roofing & Sheet Metal Co. v. Town of Parish, 139 A.D.2d 97, 106, 530 N.Y.S.2d 720; Saler v. City of New York, 96 A.D.2d 583, 584, 465 N.Y.S.2d 279; Doran v. Town of Cheektowaga, 54 A.D.2d 178, 388 N.Y.S.2d 385). A complaint that fails to allege compliance with General Municipal Law § 50-e is legally insufficient and must be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action (Davidson v. Bronx Municipal Hosp., 64 N.Y.2d 59, 62, 484 N.Y.S.2d 533, 473 N.E.2d 761; E. Williamson Roofing & Sheet Metal Co. v. Town of Parish, supra, 139 A.D.2d at 106, 530 N.Y.S.2d 720; Doran v. Town of Cheektowaga, supra ). The failure to allege compliance with the statute may be considered for the first time on appeal (E. Williamson Roofing & Sheet Metal Co. v. Town of Parish, supra, at 106, 530 N.Y.S.2d 720; cf., Camarella v. East Irondequoit Cent. School Bd., 41 A.D.2d 29, 31, 341 N.Y.S.2d 729; affd. 34 N.Y.2d 139, 356 N.Y.S.2d 553, 313 N.E.2d 29).

Supreme Court erred in dismissing the complaint in the "Second Action". Buyers' status and the circumstances surrounding his appearance at the pre-trial conference held in the Justice's chambers cannot be finally determined on this record (see, Park Knoll Assoc. v. Schmidt, 59 N.Y.2d 205, 209-210, 464 N.Y.S.2d 424, 451 N.E.2d 182; Pecue v. West, 233 N.Y. 316, 319-320, ...