Nasca v. Sgro

Citation2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 08703,957 N.Y.S.2d 246,101 A.D.3d 963
PartiesDean NASCA, appellant, v. Christina SGRO, et al., respondents, et al., defendants.
Decision Date19 December 2012
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

101 A.D.3d 963
957 N.Y.S.2d 246
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 08703

Dean NASCA, appellant,
v.
Christina SGRO, et al., respondents, et al., defendants.

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

Dec. 19, 2012.


[957 N.Y.S.2d 247]


Dean Nasca, Bayport, N.Y., appellant pro se.

Dennis M. Cohen, County Attorney, Hauppauge, N.Y. (Christopher A. Jeffreys of counsel), for respondents.


MARK C. DILLON, J.P., RUTH C. BALKIN, JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, and L. PRISCILLA HALL, JJ.

[101 A.D.3d 963]In an action, inter alia, for injunctive relief and to recover damages for defamation, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jones, Jr., J.), dated June 17, 2011, which granted the motion of the defendants Christina Sgro, Lisa Allen, Aristides Mojica, and County of Suffolk pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff's children attend Academy Street Elementary School in Bayport. Upon the enrollment of each of the plaintiff's children at the school, the plaintiff received a written school “policy,” which was apparently distributed to all parents, outlining the procedures for dropping off and picking up children at the school. This action arises from an incident that occurred on December 22, 2009, when the plaintiff allegedly had to wait for 25 minutes in traffic before being able to drop off his children because other parents who were dropping off children were not following the procedure specified in the written policy. The plaintiff confronted the defendant Christina Sgro, a crossing guard employed by the Suffolk County Police Department (hereinafter the Department),

[957 N.Y.S.2d 248]

and told her that he expected her “to do [her] ‘friggin’ job.” The next day, the plaintiff returned to the area, parked his car, and began videotaping Sgro as she [101 A.D.3d 964]worked. The plaintiff complained to the principal, as well as to Sgro's supervisor, the defendant Lisa Allen, and to the commanding officer of the Department's Fifth Precinct, the defendant Aristides Mojica, without receiving, in his view, a satisfactory response. Around the same time, Sgro filed an incident report with the Department alleging that the plaintiff had harassed her by cursing at her and videotaping her. Thereafter, the plaintiff commenced this action, inter alia, seeking to compel the defendants to enforce the school's drop-off/pick-up procedure, and seeking damages for defamation and alleged violations of 42 USC §§ 1983 and 1985. In an order dated June 17, 2011, the Supreme Court granted the motion of Sgro, Allen, Mojica, and the County of Suffolk (hereinafter collectively the movants) pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them. The plaintiff appeals.

In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the sole criterion is whether from the complaint's “four corners factual allegations are discerned which taken together manifest any cause of action cognizable at law” ( Guggenheimer v. Ginzburg, 43 N.Y.2d 268, 275, 401 N.Y.S.2d 182, 372 N.E.2d 17;see Country Pointe at Dix Hills Home Owners Assn., Inc. v. Beechwood Org., 80 A.D.3d 643, 649, 915 N.Y.S.2d 117;Fishberger v. Voss, 51 A.D.3d 627, 628, 858 N.Y.S.2d 257). Although the facts pleaded are presumed to be true and are to be accorded every favorable inference ( see Gershon v. Goldberg, 30...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • Brown v. City of N.Y., 303170/13.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • August 25, 2017
    ...a cause of action, the court applied the standards promulgated by CPLR § 3211(a)(7) and the case law interpreting it.]; Nasca v. Sgro, 101 A.D.3d 963, 963–965, 957 N.Y.S.2d 246 [2d Dept 2012] [same] ).Pursuant to 42 USC § 1983[e]very person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regula......
  • Thompson v. City of N.Y.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • December 15, 2015
    ...action, the court applied the standards promulgated by CPLR § 3211(a)(7) and the case law interpreting it.]; Nasca v. Sgro, 101 A.D.3d 963, 963–965, 957 N.Y.S.2d 246 [2d Dept.2012] [same] ).Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983[e]very person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, cu......
  • Zetes v. Stephens
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • July 5, 2013
    ...or pecuniary value” ( Hassig v. FitzRandolph, 8 A.D.3d 930, 932, 779 N.Y.S.2d 613 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Nasca v. Sgro, 101 A.D.3d 963, 965, 957 N.Y.S.2d 246), and he failed to do so ( see Cammarata, 61 A.D.3d at 913, 878 N.Y.S.2d 163;Hassig, 8 A.D.3d at 932, 779 N.Y.S.2d 6......
  • El Jamal v. Weil
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • April 9, 2014
    ...not pleaded with sufficient particularity ( seeCPLR 3016[a]; Zetes v. Stephens, 108 A.D.3d 1014, 1019, 969 N.Y.S.2d 298;Nasca v. Sgro, 101 A.D.3d 963, 965, 957 N.Y.S.2d 246;Cammarata v. Cammarata, 61 A.D.3d 912, 913, 878 N.Y.S.2d 163; [986 N.Y.S.2d 149]Dillon v. City of New York, 261 A.D.2d......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT