Case Name: William Schneider et al., Respondents, v. Town of Orange-town, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1998-01-05
Citations: 175 Misc. 2d 899
Docket Number: 
Parties: William Schneider et al., Respondents, v Town of Orange-town, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 175
Pages: 899–900

Head Matter:
[673 NYS2d 281]
William Schneider et al., Respondents, v Town of Orange-town, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,
January 5, 1998
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
James K. Riley, Town Attorney of Town of Orangetown, Orangeburg, for appellant. William Schneider and another, respondents pro se.

Opinion:
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs.
Plaintiffs commenced this claim to recover $3,000 in damages for the cost of replacing the sewer line leading from the main line, running under the town road, to the curb outside of their house. A review of the record on appeal does not indicate that plaintiffs claimed that defendant's negligence was the direct or proximate cause of their sewer pipe problems. In their small claims complaint they solely seek reimbursement for monies spent in replacing the pipe. Such a claim is clearly based on the theory of unjust enrichment. Therefore, the notice of claim requirements of the General Municipal Law do not apply (Watts v Town of Gardiner, 90 AD2d 615).
DiPaola, Collins and Ingrassia, JJ., concur.