Chenkin v. City of New York, 103 A.D.3d 556 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013). · Go Syfert
Chenkin v. City of New York, 103 A.D.3d 556 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
1 citation event across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Smith v. New York City Housing Authority (nysupct, 2013-12-20)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Smith v. New York City Housing Authority
N.Y. Sup. Ct. · 2013 · confidence medium
(Felder v Casey, 487 US 131, 151-152 [1988]; Chenkin v City of New York, 103 AD3d 556, 557 [1st Dept 2013]; Wanczowski v City of New York, 186 AD2d 397 [1st Dept 1992].) Such a requirement may apply to claims for damages based on state law, but, as set forth below, plaintiffs only potentially viable claim is based on 12 USC § 1701u (c) (1), its implementing regulations 24 CFR 135.32 (c) and 135.34 (a) (1), and 42 USC § 1983 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Michael Chenkin
v.
City of New York
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Feb 26, 2013.
103 A.D.3d 556
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), entered July 6, 2011, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, and denied plaintiffs motion for leave to amend the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The dismissal of plaintiffs state tort claims was proper, either because those claims were not included in the notice of claim, because they were untimely or because the facts alleged failed to state a cause of action. Plaintiffs cause of action under 42 USC § 1983 (see Monell v New York City Dept, of Social Servs., 436 US 658, 690 [1978]), based on a claimed policy under which the police automatically arrest the accused in domestic disputes regardless of whether the criminal conduct of which they are accused is “trivial,” was also properly dismissed. While a notice[*557] of claim is not a prerequisite for such a claim (see Wanczowski v City of New York, 186 AD2d 397 [1st Dept 1992]), the allegations failed to state a viable section 1983 claim. The police are authorized to make arrests upon reasonable cause to believe that the person being arrested has committed a misdemeanor constituting a family offense (see CPL 140.10 [4] [c]), and plaintiffs arrest fell within these parameters.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P, Saxe, Moskowitz, AbdusSalaam and Gische, JJ.