| Miller v City of New York |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 08495 [89 AD3d 612] |
| November 22, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Adam Miller, Respondent, v City of New York et al.,Appellants. |
—[*1] Glass Krakower LLP, New York (Bryan D. Glass of counsel), for respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane S. Solomon, J.), entered March 17, 2011,which, to the extent appealed from, as limited by the briefs, denied defendants' motion to dismissthe tortious interference with contractual rights claim asserted against defendant Olga Livanis,unanimously affirmed, without costs.
A notice of claim is required as a condition precedent to commencing an action against anemployee of the New York City Department of Education (Education Law § 3813 [2];General Municipal Law § 50-i), when, as in this case, the conduct complained of wasengaged in as part of defendant's employment or in the scope of her employment (Radvany vJones, 184 AD2d 349 [1992]; seealso Hale v Scopac, 74 AD3d 1906 [2010]; DeRise v Kreinik, 10 AD3d 381, 382 [2004]). Here, plaintiff didfile a notice of claim which described in detail the time, place and manner of the conduct byLivanis that allegedly interfered with his tenure rights and continued employment with theDepartment of Education, as well as his ability to enter into employment with other schools.Although he did not use the words "tortious interference with contract," a notice of claim doesnot have to set forth a precise legal theory of recovery (DeLeonibus v Scognamillo, 183AD2d 697, 698 [1992]; see also Simons v City of New York, 252 AD2d 451, 453[1998]). "[T]he notice of claim described in sufficient detail the time, place and manner of theoccurrence and plaintiff's damages to advise [*2]the City of thebasis for the claim so as to have an opportunity to investigate" (id.; see Parochial BusSys. v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 60 NY2d 539, 547 [1983]).Concur—Moskowitz, J.P., Renwick, DeGrasse and Abdus-Salaam, JJ. [Prior CaseHistory: 2011 NY Slip Op 30635(U).]