The Requirements of Banking Law Section 625 (3)

A divided Court in Bernardez v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. (104 AD2d 309, 310 [1st Dept 1984]) found the failure to comply with the condition precedent requirements of Banking Law 625 (3) was fatal and stated: "Finally, the courts have held, even where constructive notice is received within the applicable time period, that a failure to comply with a condition precedent is fatal." However, one distinguishing characteristic of that case was that the first action was commenced in Federal court while the second action was commenced in State court. Likewise in Glamm v. City of Amsterdam (67 AD2d 1056 [3d Dept 1979]) the Court did not permit relation back under CPLR 205 (a) where the two actions were commenced in different forums. In Glamm (supra) the first action was brought in workers' compensation court and only after that action was dismissed was a second action commenced in Supreme Court. That plaintiff claimed that the effect of the Statute of Limitations under General Municipal Law 50-e was tolled by the commencement of the first action, but the Court disagreed.