Dorian v. City of N.Y.

• Decision Date: 04 June 2015
• Citation: 2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 04738,129 A.D.3d 445,9 N.Y.S.3d 577 (Mem)
• Parties: Alison DORIAN, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants–Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

129 A.D.3d 445

9 N.Y.S.3d 577 (Mem)

2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 04738

Alison DORIAN, Plaintiff–Appellant

v.The CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants–Respondents.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

June 4, 2015.

Alison Dorian, appellant pro se.

Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Emma Grunberg of counsel), for respondents.

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Kathryn E. Freed, J.), entered September 18, 2013, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiff's motion for renewal (denominated a motion for reargument) of a prior order, same court and Justice, entered June 6, 2013, granting defendants' motion to dismiss, pursuant to CPLR 3212(a)(7), plaintiff's causes of action for punitive damages, federal civil rights violations, abuse of process, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and granting defendants' motion for a change of venue as to her causes of action for assault and excessive force, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff presented additional facts in her papers on her “reargument” motion and, accordingly, we treat the motion as one for renewal, the denial of which is appealable (see Mejia v. Nanni, 307 A.D.2d 870, 871, 763 N.Y.S.2d 611 [1st Dept.2003] ; Sementilli v. Ruscigno, 286 A.D.2d 242, 243, 728 N.Y.S.2d 372 [1st Dept.2001] ).

The court, however, properly denied plaintiff's motion. Plaintiff failed to state facts constituting valid causes of action for abuse of process (Curiano v. Suozzi, 63 N.Y.2d 113, 116, 480 N.Y.S.2d 466, 469 N.E.2d 1324 [1984] ); intentional infliction of emotional distress (LoPresti v. Florio, 71 A.D.3d 574, 574–575, 899 N.Y.S.2d 10 [1st Dept.2010] ); or a violation of her federal civil rights (Monell v. Department of Social Servs. of City of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658, 694, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 [1978] ). Moreover, even assuming that plaintiff's punitive damages claim was meant to be part of her intentional tort claims (Rocanova v. Equitable Life Assur. Socy. of U.S., 83 N.Y.2d 603, 616, 612 N.Y.S.2d 339, 634 N.E.2d 940 [1994] ), and not a separate claim (see Rivera v. City of New York, 40 A.D.3d 334, 344, 836 N.Y.S.2d 108 [1st Dept.2007], lv. dismissed 16 N.Y.3d 782, 919 N.Y.S.2d 506, 944 N.E.2d 1145 [2011] ), punitive damages are not recoverable against a state or its political subdivisions, which includes a municipality (Sharapata v. Town of Islip, 56 N.Y.2d 332, 334, 338–339, 452 N.Y.S.2d 347, 437 N.E.2d 1104 [1982] ).

The court...