Alaimo v. New York City Department of Sanitation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Alaimo v. New York City Department of Sanitation

203 A.D.2d 501, 611 N.Y.S.2d 245, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4285

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 25, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 203 A.D.2d 501 (Alaimo v. New York City Department of Sanitation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alaimo v. New York City Department of Sanitation, 203 A.D.2d 501, 611 N.Y.S.2d 245, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4285 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—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 AD2d 522, 523; see also, Mills v County of Monroe, 89 AD2d 776, affd 59 NY2d 307, cert denied 464 US 1018); 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, 62 NY2d 442; Stoetzel v Wappingers Cent. School Dist., 166 AD2d 643; Mills v County of Monroe, supra; Ramos v New York City Police Dept., 127 Misc 2d 872), and the plaintiff here filed his complaint within the three-year [502]*502limitations period. Sullivan, J. P., Lawrence, Pizzuto, Joy and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—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 AD2d 522, 523; see also, Mills v County of Monroe, 89 AD2d 776, affd 59 NY2d 307, cert denied 464 US 1018); 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, 62 NY2d 442; Stoetzel v Wappingers Cent. School Dist., 166 AD2d 643; Mills v County of Monroe, supra; Ramos v New York City Police Dept., 127 Misc 2d 872), and the plaintiff here filed his complaint within the three-year [502]*502limitations period. Sullivan, J. P., Lawrence, Pizzuto, Joy and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

203 A.D.2d 501, 611 N.Y.S.2d 245, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4285, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alaimo-v-new-york-city-department-of-sanitation-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack