Majority
“Service of a notice of claim within 90 days after accrual of the claim is a condition precedent to the commencement of an action against a school district” (Matter of Surdo v Levittown Pub. School Dist., 41 AD3d 486 , 487 [2007]; see Education Law § 3813; General Municipal Law § 50-e [1] [a]). Although “courts have not interpreted the statute to require that a claimant state a precise cause of action in haec verba in a notice of claim” (DeLeonibus v Scognamillo, 183 AD2d 697 , 698 [1992]), “a party may not add a new theory of liability which was not included in the notice of claim” (Semprini v Village of Southampton, 48 AD3d 543 , 544 [2008]; see Mazzilli v City of New York, 154 AD2d 355 , 357 [1989]).
Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the third cause of action alleging negligent supervision by submitting proof that the notice of claim served by the plaintiff did not mention this theory {see Hudson Val. Mar., Inc. v Town of Cortlandt, 79 AD3d 700 , 704 [2010]; Bryant v City of New York, 188 AD2d 445 , 446 [1992]; Demorcy v City of New York, 137 AD2d 650 , 650-651
Cases cited
- Surdo v. Levittown Public School District 41 AD3d 486 at 487 p. 571
- DeLeonibus v. Scognamillo 183 AD2d 697 at 698 p. 571
- Mazzilli v. City of New York 154 AD2d 355 at 357 p. 571
- Hudson Valley Marine, Inc. v. Town of Cortlandt 79 AD3d 700 at 704 p. 571
- Bryant v. City of New York 188 AD2d 445 at 446 p. 571
- Demorcy v. City of New York 137 AD2d 650 at 650-651 p. 571
- Alvarez v. Prospect Hospital 68 NY2d 320 at 324 p. 572