Bah v City of New York

Bah v City of New York 2013 NY Slip Op 05296 Decided on July 17, 2013 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on July 17, 2013
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P.
RUTH C. BALKIN
L. PRISCILLA HALL
LEONARD B. AUSTIN, JJ.
2012-06517
(Index No. 29770/10)

[*1]Amina Bah, appellant,

v

City of New York, et al., respondents.




Bader Yakaitis & Nonnenmacher, LLP, New York, N.Y. (John
J. Nonnenmacher of counsel), for appellant.
Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y.
(Leonard Koerner and Elizabeth S.
Natrella of counsel), for respondents.


DECISION & ORDER

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for false arrest, battery, and civil rights violations pursuant to 42 USC § 1983, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Velasquez, J.), dated May 16, 2012, which granted the cross motion of the defendants, City of New York and New York City Police Department, for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's cause of action to recover damages for civil rights violations pursuant to 42 USC § 1983 insofar as asserted against the defendant City of New York, and denied that branch of her motion which was for leave to amend her complaint to further amplify her cause of action pursuant to 42 USC § 1983.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiff's contentions, the Supreme Court properly granted the cross motion of the defendants, City of New York and New York City Police Department, for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action to recover damages for civil rights violations pursuant to 42 USC § 1983 insofar as asserted against the defendant City of New York. In opposition to the defendants' prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiff produced no evidentiary support for her claim that the acts which allegedly deprived her of her constitutional rights were performed pursuant to an express or implied policy or custom of the City, and thus failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see e.g. Rodgers v City of New York, 106 AD3d 1068; Holland v City of Poughkeepsie, 90 AD3d 841, 847; Graham v City of New York, 279 AD2d 435, 436; Holmberg v Sheriff's Off., County of Orange, 279 AD2d 551; Mann v Alvarez, 242 AD2d 318, 319-320; Jackson v Police Dept. of City of N.Y., 192 AD2d 641, 642, cert denied 511 US 1004; Jenkins v City of N.Y., 478 F3d 76, 95; see generally Cozzani v County of Suffolk, 84 AD3d 1147; Bryant v City of New York, 188 AD2d 445, 446).

Additionally, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for leave to amend her complaint to amplify her cause of action pursuant to 42 USC § 1983 (see Spodek v Neiss, 104 AD3d 758, 759; Abakporo v Daily News, 102 AD3d 815, 817; Russo [*2]v Lapeer Contr. Co., Inc., 84 AD3d 1344).
MASTRO, J.P., BALKIN, HALL and AUSTIN, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court