In Cutaneo v. New York City Dept. of Educ., No. 509064/2024, 2024 WL 4373365, 2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 33478(U) (N.Y. Sup Ct, Kings County Oct. 01, 2024), the court dismissed plaintiff’s employment discrimination claims, due to the failure to file a Notice of Claim.
The court explained:
In lieu of an answer, defendants served the aforementioned motion to dismiss, contending (among other things) that the Verified Complaint should be dismissed on account of plaintiff’s failure to serve a predicate notice of claim as required by Education Law § 3813. Plaintiff does not dispute that he did not serve a notice of claim before commencing this action, but contends that his prior “dual filing with the [New York State Department of Human Rights and with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission] satisfies the notice of claim requirements.” Plaintiff is incorrect as a matter of law. “What satisfies a statute such as section 3813 of the Education Law is not knowledge of the wrong. What the statute exacts is notice of the claim [to the statutorily designated entity].” Parochial Bus Sys., Inc. v Board of Educ. of City of NY, 60 NY2d 539, 548 (1983) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted).
Education Law § 3813 (1) broadly requires the filing of a notice of claim as a condition precedent to an ‘action . . . for any cause whatever,’ which includes . . . causes **3 of action pursuant to the New York State [and the New York City] Human Rights Law[s]. Seifullah v City of NY, 161 AD3d 1206, 1206 (2d Dept 2018). “The essential elements to be included in the notice are the nature of the claim, the time when, the place where and the manner in which the claim arose. . . . Satisfaction of these requirements is a condition precedent to bringing an action against a school district or a board of education and, moreover, failure to present a claim within the statutory time limitation . . . is a fatal defect.” Parochial Bus Sys., 60 NY2d at 547 (1983) (internal citations omitted). See also Blaize v New York City Dept of Educ., 205 AD3d 871, 874 (2d Dept 2022).
[Internal quotation marks and citations omitted.]
The court further observed that “[a]lthough the notice of claim requirement does not apply when a litigant seeks only equitable relief, or commences a proceeding to vindicate a public interest, here, the plaintiff sought to vindicate a private right.”