Bak v. Flynn Meyer Sunnyside, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bak v. Flynn Meyer Sunnyside, Inc.

285 A.D.2d 523, 727 N.Y.S.2d 656, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7463

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

DecidedJuly 16, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 285 A.D.2d 523 (Bak v. Flynn Meyer Sunnyside, Inc.) 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

Bak v. Flynn Meyer Sunnyside, Inc., 285 A.D.2d 523, 727 N.Y.S.2d 656, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7463 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for civil rights violations under Civil Rights Law § 40-c and 42 USC § 1981, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), dated December 7, 1999, as granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was to dismiss the sixth cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7).

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs contentions on appeal, the complaint fails to state a cause of action under either Civil Rights Law § 40-c or 42 § USC 1981. There is no allegation in the complaint that the plaintiff provided notice to the Attorney General at or before the commencement of the action as required by Civil Rights Law § 40-d (see, Giaimo & Vreeburg v Smith, 192 AD2d 41). Additionally, there is no allegation in the complaint that the plaintiff was denied a contract because of discriminatory reasons, as is required to support a cause of action under 42 USC § 1981. Accordingly, the sixth cause of action was properly dismissed. Krausman, J. P., Goldstein, Luciano and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for civil rights violations under Civil Rights Law § 40-c and 42 USC § 1981, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), dated December 7, 1999, as granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was to dismiss the sixth cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7).

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs contentions on appeal, the complaint fails to state a cause of action under either Civil Rights Law § 40-c or 42 § USC 1981. There is no allegation in the complaint that the plaintiff provided notice to the Attorney General at or before the commencement of the action as required by Civil Rights Law § 40-d (see, Giaimo & Vreeburg v Smith, 192 AD2d 41). Additionally, there is no allegation in the complaint that the plaintiff was denied a contract because of discriminatory reasons, as is required to support a cause of action under 42 USC § 1981. Accordingly, the sixth cause of action was properly dismissed. Krausman, J. P., Goldstein, Luciano and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

285 A.D.2d 523, 727 N.Y.S.2d 656, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7463, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bak-v-flynn-meyer-sunnyside-inc-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack