Gomez v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gomez v. City of New York

29 A.D.3d 738, 813 N.Y.S.2d 917

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

DecidedMay 16, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 29 A.D.3d 738 (Gomez 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

Gomez v. City of New York, 29 A.D.3d 738, 813 N.Y.S.2d 917 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that a resolution adopted by the Board of Estimate of the City of New York on May 1, 1936, as amended November 11, 1955 and May 23, 1957, constitutes an unconstitutional taking of the plaintiffs’ property, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Mega, J.), dated June 13, 2005, as denied their motion for summary judgment.

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

[739]*739The plaintiffs failed to put forth evidence in admissible form establishing that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the claim alleging an unconstitutional taking of their property (see CPLR 3212 [b]). Moreover, on the record before us, the plaintiffs failed to establish, prima facie, that any policy of the defendant existed by which the plaintiffs were denied equal protection of the laws (see Goodwin v Perales, 88 NY2d 383, 398 [1996]; Payne v County of Sullivan, 12 AD3d 807, 809 [2004]). Florio, J.P., Miller, Adams and Skelos, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that a resolution adopted by the Board of Estimate of the City of New York on May 1, 1936, as amended November 11, 1955 and May 23, 1957, constitutes an unconstitutional taking of the plaintiffs’ property, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Mega, J.), dated June 13, 2005, as denied their motion for summary judgment.

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

[739]*739The plaintiffs failed to put forth evidence in admissible form establishing that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the claim alleging an unconstitutional taking of their property (see CPLR 3212 [b]). Moreover, on the record before us, the plaintiffs failed to establish, prima facie, that any policy of the defendant existed by which the plaintiffs were denied equal protection of the laws (see Goodwin v Perales, 88 NY2d 383, 398 [1996]; Payne v County of Sullivan, 12 AD3d 807, 809 [2004]). Florio, J.P., Miller, Adams and Skelos, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.3d 738, 813 N.Y.S.2d 917, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gomez-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack