Rubino v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rubino v. City of New York

209 A.D.2d 681, 619 N.Y.S.2d 961, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11730

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

DecidedNovember 28, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 209 A.D.2d 681 (Rubino 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

Rubino v. City of New York, 209 A.D.2d 681, 619 N.Y.S.2d 961, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11730 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages in connection with the sale of personal property, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), entered July 20, 1993, as granted the cross motion of the defendants City of New York and the Commissioner of the New York City Department of Social Services to dismiss the complaint insofar as it was asserted against them for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

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

The Supreme Court properly determined that the plaintiffs, by way of their negligence cause of action, are actually seeking judicial review of an administrative determination. Since the plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies with respect to the determination that they seek to review, the Supreme Court did not err in dismissing their complaint insofar as it was asserted against the appellants (see, Matter of Beyah v Scully, 143 AD2d 903; New York City Health & Hosps. Corp. v Hilton, 136 Misc 2d 143, affd 145 AD2d 302). We reject the plaintiffs’ contention that the exhaustion doctrine should not be applied under the circumstances of this case. Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, O’Brien and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages in connection with the sale of personal property, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), entered July 20, 1993, as granted the cross motion of the defendants City of New York and the Commissioner of the New York City Department of Social Services to dismiss the complaint insofar as it was asserted against them for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

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

The Supreme Court properly determined that the plaintiffs, by way of their negligence cause of action, are actually seeking judicial review of an administrative determination. Since the plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies with respect to the determination that they seek to review, the Supreme Court did not err in dismissing their complaint insofar as it was asserted against the appellants (see, Matter of Beyah v Scully, 143 AD2d 903; New York City Health & Hosps. Corp. v Hilton, 136 Misc 2d 143, affd 145 AD2d 302). We reject the plaintiffs’ contention that the exhaustion doctrine should not be applied under the circumstances of this case. Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, O’Brien and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 A.D.2d 681, 619 N.Y.S.2d 961, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11730, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rubino-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack