Alaimo v. New York City Dept. of Sanitation
| Decision Date | 25 April 1994 |
| Citation | 203 A.D.2d 501,611 N.Y.S.2d 245 |
| Parties | Charles ALAIMO, Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF SANITATION, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Stephen David Fink, Forest Hills, for appellant.
Paul A. Crotty, Corp. Counsel, New York City (Pamela Seider Dolgow and John Hogrogian, of counsel), for respondent.
Before SULLIVAN, J.P., and LAWRENCE, PIZZUTO, JOY and GOLDSTEIN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action to recover damages for discriminatory practices pursuant to Executive Law § 296, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dunkin, J.), dated August 22, 1991, which denied his motion to file a late notice of claim.
ORDERED that the order is modified, by adding, after the words "motion is denied" the words "as unnecessary"; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
General Municipal Law § 50-i is not applicable to the instant action (see, Simpson v. New York City Tr. Auth., 188 A.D.2d 522, 523, 591 N.Y.S.2d 350; see also, Mills v. County of Monroe, 89 A.D.2d 776, 453 N.Y.S.2d 486, affd. 59 N.Y.2d 307, 464 N.Y.S.2d 709, 451 N.E.2d 456, cert. denied 464 U.S. 1018, 104 S.Ct. 551, 78 L.Ed.2d 725); therefore, no notice of claim was required as a condition precedent to its commencement.
We further note that the commencement of the instant action to recover damages for unlawful discriminatory practices under Executive Law § 296 is governed by the three-year Statute of Limitations prescribed in CPLR 214(2) (see, Koerner v. State of New York, Pilgrim Psychiatric Center, 62 N.Y.2d 442, 478 N.Y.S.2d 584, 467 N.E.2d 232; Stoetzel v. Wappingers Cent. School Dist., 166 A.D.2d 643, 561 N.Y.S.2d 71; Mills v. County of Monroe, supra; Ramos v. New York City Police Dept., 127 Misc.2d 872, 487 N.Y.S.2d 667), and the plaintiff here filed his complaint within the three-year limitations period.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Liu v. New York City Police Dept.
...in General Municipal Law § 50-i (Felder v. Casey, 487 U.S. 131, 108 S.Ct. 2302, 101 L.Ed.2d 123; Alaimo v. New York City Dept. of Sanitation, 203 A.D.2d 501, 611 N.Y.S.2d 245). However, plaintiff's failure to specifically plead the existence of an official policy or custom which deprived hi......
-
Picciano v. Nassau County Civil Serv.
...A.D.2d 294; Palmer v. City of New York, 215 A.D.2d 336; Morrison v. New York City Police Dept., 214 A.D.2d 394; Alaimo v. New York City Dept. of Sanitation, 203 A.D.2d 501; Simpson v. New York City Tr. Auth., 188 A.D.2d In contrast, the notice of claim provision in Town Law § 67 is not limi......
-
D'Amore v. The City of New York
...(CPLR § 214[2]; see Goldin v Engineers Country Club, 54 A.D.3d 658, 659 [2d Dept 2008]; Alaimo v New York City Dept. of Sanitation, 203 A.D.2d 501, 501 [2d Dept 1994]; Jones v State, 149 A.D.2d 470, 471 [2d Dept 1989]; see also Hagan v City of New York, 39 F.Supp.3d 481, 496 n.10 [SDNY 2014......
-
Felmine v. City of New York
...causes of action are not considered tort claims that trigger the notice-of-claim statute at all. See Alaimo v New York City Dept. of Sanitation, 611 N.Y.S.2d 245 (2d Dep't 1994); Mills v. County of Monroe, 453 N.Y.S.2d 486 (4th Dep't 1982); see also Pratt, 2011 WL 1204804, at *7. Here, Felm......