Tipaldo v. Lynn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tipaldo v. Lynn

284 A.D.2d 142, 726 N.Y.S.2d 96, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5672

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

DecidedJune 7, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 284 A.D.2d 142 (Tipaldo v. Lynn) 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

Tipaldo v. Lynn, 284 A.D.2d 142, 726 N.Y.S.2d 96, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5672 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Franklin Weissberg, J.), entered September 20, 2000, which, in an action under Civil Service Law § 75-b, the “whistleblowers’ statute,” by a former employee of the New York City Department of Transportation against the City, denied plaintiffs motion to amend the complaint so as to add a cause of action under 42 USC § 1983, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion was properly denied absent any showing that it has ever been City policy or custom to permit retaliatory personnel actions against employees who report suspected wrongdoing in their agencies, or that the Commissioner and First Deputy Commissioner of plaintiffs agency, who allegedly made the decision to demote plaintiff and are named herein as defendants in their official capacities, have final policymaking authority with respect to personnel matters (see, City of St. Louis v Praprotnik, 485 US 112, 123, 128-130; cf., Matter of City of New York v City Civ. Serv. Commn., 60 NY2d 436, 441-442). Indeed, the City, after its Department of Investigation reported that plaintiffs demotion was retaliatory, offered to re[143]*143instate plaintiff to the same or comparable position as that he held prior to the demotion, pay him the difference in salary caused thereby, and restore any lost benefits or seniority rights. We have considered plaintiff’s other contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Andrias, J. P., Lerner, Rubin, Buckley and Marlow, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Franklin Weissberg, J.), entered September 20, 2000, which, in an action under Civil Service Law § 75-b, the “whistleblowers’ statute,” by a former employee of the New York City Department of Transportation against the City, denied plaintiffs motion to amend the complaint so as to add a cause of action under 42 USC § 1983, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion was properly denied absent any showing that it has ever been City policy or custom to permit retaliatory personnel actions against employees who report suspected wrongdoing in their agencies, or that the Commissioner and First Deputy Commissioner of plaintiffs agency, who allegedly made the decision to demote plaintiff and are named herein as defendants in their official capacities, have final policymaking authority with respect to personnel matters (see, City of St. Louis v Praprotnik, 485 US 112, 123, 128-130; cf., Matter of City of New York v City Civ. Serv. Commn., 60 NY2d 436, 441-442). Indeed, the City, after its Department of Investigation reported that plaintiffs demotion was retaliatory, offered to re[143]*143instate plaintiff to the same or comparable position as that he held prior to the demotion, pay him the difference in salary caused thereby, and restore any lost benefits or seniority rights. We have considered plaintiff’s other contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Andrias, J. P., Lerner, Rubin, Buckley and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 A.D.2d 142, 726 N.Y.S.2d 96, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5672, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tipaldo-v-lynn-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack