Lotaj v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lotaj v. City of New York

127 A.D.3d 605, 8 N.Y.S.3d 286

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

DecidedApril 23, 2015

Docket14915 101268/13

StatusPublished

This text of 127 A.D.3d 605 (Lotaj 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

Lotaj v. City of New York, 127 A.D.3d 605, 8 N.Y.S.3d 286 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis B. York, J.), entered May 7, 2014, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of standing, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly dismissed the complaint alleging that defendant improperly sold taxi medallions through a competitive auction rather than through a lottery. Plaintiff does not allege in the complaint that he sought, and failed to obtain, a medallion under the current system, that he sought financing to support a bid for a medallion, or that he took any other practical steps. Accordingly, the allegations that he wrongfully has been denied the opportunity for a chance to obtain a taxi medallion *606 are speculative and conjectural, and do not amount to an allegation of “injury in fact” (see New York State Assn. of Nurse Anesthetists v Novello, 2 NY3d 207, 211-212 [2004]; Roberts v Health & Hosps. Corp., 87 AD3d 311, 318-319 [1st Dept 2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 717 [2011]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Andrias, Manzanet-Daniels and Clark, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis B. York, J.), entered May 7, 2014, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of standing, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly dismissed the complaint alleging that defendant improperly sold taxi medallions through a competitive auction rather than through a lottery. Plaintiff does not allege in the complaint that he sought, and failed to obtain, a medallion under the current system, that he sought financing to support a bid for a medallion, or that he took any other practical steps. Accordingly, the allegations that he wrongfully has been denied the opportunity for a chance to obtain a taxi medallion *606 are speculative and conjectural, and do not amount to an allegation of “injury in fact” (see New York State Assn. of Nurse Anesthetists v Novello, 2 NY3d 207, 211-212 [2004]; Roberts v Health & Hosps. Corp., 87 AD3d 311, 318-319 [1st Dept 2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 717 [2011]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Andrias, Manzanet-Daniels and Clark, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 A.D.3d 605, 8 N.Y.S.3d 286, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lotaj-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack