SOLOW v. LIEBMAN

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Pursuant to the mandate of CPLR 9802, the plaintiff was required to serve a notice of claim upon the Village of East Hampton in compliance with General Municipal Law § 50-e, i.e., within 90 days of the accrual of the cause of action (see, Nassau County v. Incorporated Vil. of Roslyn, 182 A.D.2d 678; Solow v. Liebman, 175 A.D.2d 867). The plaintiff's attempt to circumvent this requirement by alleging that the claims asserted in the proposed amended complaint against the Village arise from a "continuing wrong", i.e., the wrongful issuance to the defendant, a neighboring landowner, of a building permit and certificate of occupancy, are unavailing. A cause of action involving the wrongful issuance of a building permit accrues when the permit is issued (see, Curtis Case v. City of Port Jervis, 150 A.D.2d 421), and does not constitute a continuing wrong (see, Bloomfield Bldg. Wreckers v. City of Troy, 50 A.D.2d 673, affd 41 N.Y.2d 1102; Matter of Waterside Assocs. v. New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 127 A.D.2d 663, affd 72 N.Y.2d 1009; Pekar v Town of Veteran, 65 A.D.2d 651; Band v. Town of Colonie, 36 A.D.2d 785). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly concluded that the plaintiff's failure to serve a timely notice of claim required rejection of the "legally insufficient" proposed amended complaint (see, Matter of Consolidated Edison Co. [Neptune Assocs.], 143 A.D.2d 1012).

In light of our determination, we do not address the parties' remaining contentions. Sullivan, J.P., Miller, O'Brien and Krausman, JJ., concur.