Cox v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cox v. City of New York

47 A.D.2d 942, 367 N.Y.S.2d 320, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9410

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

DecidedApril 28, 1975

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 47 A.D.2d 942 (Cox v. City of New York) 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

Cox v. City of New York, 47 A.D.2d 942, 367 N.Y.S.2d 320, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9410 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for, inter alia, alleged wrongful eviction from an apartment, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered July 15, 1974, which (1) granted a motion by defendants Tyson, English and Steers to dismiss the complaint as to them and (2) denied plaintiff’s oral cross motion for summary judgment against said defendants. Order affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Hopkins, Brennan and Munder, JJ., concur; Rabin, Acting P. J., and Shapiro, J., dissent in part and vote to modify the order so as to sustain the complaint as to defendant Steers and otherwise to affirm the order, with the following memorandum: We believe that the complaint, as a pleading, sufficiently states a cause of action against defendant Steers. He is a clerk in the Housing Part of the Civil Court of the City of New York. Defendants Tyson and English are respectively the Chief Clerk of the Civil Court and the Chief Clerk of the Housing Part of the Civil Court. They, as well as Steers, are sought to be cast in damages because Steers issued a warrant of eviction of plaintiff as a tenant of premises 104 St. James Place, Brooklyn, New York, from which premises plaintiff was thereafter evicted by a city marshal. The dispossess petition referred to occupancy of premises at 104 St. Johns Place, in Brooklyn, and the judgment of the court directed the issuance of a warrant of eviction from the premises described in the petition. Under the circumstances, and there being no immunity statute to protect defendant Steers, the complaint sets forth a cause of action against him. However, the attempt to allege a cause of action against defendants Tyson and English on the theory that they did not adopt proper procedures to prevent an occurrence such as happened in this case must fail because there is no showing that they had any authority to promulgate any changes in existing procedures.

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

In an action to recover damages for, inter alia, alleged wrongful eviction from an apartment, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered July 15, 1974, which (1) granted a motion by defendants Tyson, English and Steers to dismiss the complaint as to them and (2) denied plaintiff’s oral cross motion for summary judgment against said defendants. Order affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Hopkins, Brennan and Munder, JJ., concur; Rabin, Acting P. J., and Shapiro, J., dissent in part and vote to modify the order so as to sustain the complaint as to defendant Steers and otherwise to affirm the order, with the following memorandum: We believe that the complaint, as a pleading, sufficiently states a cause of action against defendant Steers. He is a clerk in the Housing Part of the Civil Court of the City of New York. Defendants Tyson and English are respectively the Chief Clerk of the Civil Court and the Chief Clerk of the Housing Part of the Civil Court. They, as well as Steers, are sought to be cast in damages because Steers issued a warrant of eviction of plaintiff as a tenant of premises 104 St. James Place, Brooklyn, New York, from which premises plaintiff was thereafter evicted by a city marshal. The dispossess petition referred to occupancy of premises at 104 St. Johns Place, in Brooklyn, and the judgment of the court directed the issuance of a warrant of eviction from the premises described in the petition. Under the circumstances, and there being no immunity statute to protect defendant Steers, the complaint sets forth a cause of action against him. However, the attempt to allege a cause of action against defendants Tyson and English on the theory that they did not adopt proper procedures to prevent an occurrence such as happened in this case must fail because there is no showing that they had any authority to promulgate any changes in existing procedures.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 A.D.2d 942, 367 N.Y.S.2d 320, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9410, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cox-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack