Case ID: ad2d_12/html/0876-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Rafek Kawar, Respondent, v. Earl S. Martin et al., Defendants, and Fred H. Sommers, Appellant.
   Order insofar as appealed from unanimously affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. Memorandum: Upon the facts here presented, it was not requisite to the maintenance of an action against the appellant Sommers to allege in the complaint due service of a notice as required by section 52 of the County Law and section 50-e of the General Municipal Law. (Appeal from part of order of Onondaga Special Term denying motion by defendant Sommers for a dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, McClusky, and Henry, JJ. [25 Misc 2d 3.]