Nioras v Village of Rye Brook

Nioras v Village of Rye Brook 2010 NY Slip Op 05372 [74 AD3d 1036] June 15, 2010 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, August 25, 2010

Robert Nioras, Appellant,
v
Village of Rye Brook et al., Respondents.

—[*1] McCarthy Fingar LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (Joel Martin Aurnou and Stephen Davis of counsel), for appellant.

Gelardi & Randazzo, LLP, Rye Brook, N.Y. (James A. Randazzo, Edward F. Beane, and Karen Lee of counsel), for respondents.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for unjust enrichment, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Scheinkman, J.), entered June 23, 2009, which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for failure to comply with CPLR 9802, and denied his cross motion, inter alia, for summary judgment on the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the notice of claim requirements of CPLR 9802 apply to this action (see CPLR 9802; Solow v Liebman, 175 AD2d 867, 868-869 [1991]; see also Greco v Incorporated Vil. of Freeport, 223 AD2d 674 [1996]; Martz v Incorporated Vil. of Val. Stream, 210 AD2d 205 [1994]; Nassau County v Incorporated Vil. of Roslyn, 182 AD2d 678, 679 [1992]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for failure to comply with CPLR 9802.

In light of our determination, we need not reach the plaintiff's remaining contentions. Fisher, J.P., Santucci, Miller and Lott, JJ., concur.