In this CPLR Article 78 Petitioner sought judicial review of a determination of the City of Newburgh [City] to adopt the findings and recommendation of a disciplinary hearing officer made pursuant to Civil Service Law §75 in which the hearing officer found the Petitioner guilty of certain charges of misconduct and recommended the termination of Petitioner's employment as a City police officer. Petitioner appealed the City's decision.
City had filed an answer to Petitioner's appeal with objections in point of law, including that the Petitioner failed to serve a notice of timely claim as required by Section C6.47 of the City's Charter. Petitioner thereupon moved for leave to serve a late notice of claim.
Supreme Court granted Petitioner's motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim and transferred the proceeding to the Appellate Division pursuant to CPLR 7804(g). The Appellate Division, however, vacated so much of the Supreme Court's order as granted the Petitioner's motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim, dismissed the Article 78 proceeding and ordered one bill of costs to the City.
The Appellate Division, citing Clayton Indus., Inc. v City of Newburgh, 17 AD3d 309, noted that Section C6.47(A) of the City's Charter provides that with respect to non-tort claims:
1. No action or special proceeding shall be maintained against the City unless "a written verified claim ... was served on the City ... within three months after the accrual of such claim";
2. Service of a notice of claim is a condition precedent to maintaining an action or proceeding against the City; and
3. Statutory requirements conditioning suit against a governmental entity must be strictly construed.
Noting that it is undisputed that Petitioner failed to serve a notice of claim within three months after his claim accrued as required by Section C6.47 of the City Charter , "unlike other notice statutes, section C6.47 of the City Charter for the City of Newburgh does not provide courts with the authority to extend the time for the service of a notice of claim arising upon nontort claims."
In the words of the Appellate Division, "... since this proceeding is not founded upon tort, the Supreme Court was without authority to grant the [Petitioner's] motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim ... and it should have dismissed the proceeding on the ground that the [Petitioner] failed to timely serve a notice of claim as required by section C6.47 of the City Charter for the City of Newburgh".
Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.