civil rights claim in New York

2020A violation of a Department of Corrections and Community Supervision directive does not rise to a violation of constitutional or federal statutory rights sufficient to support a civil rights claim under 42 USC § 1983 ( see Holcomb v Lykens , 337 F3d 217, 224 [2d Cir 2013]; Shakur v Selsky , 391 F3d 106 , 119 [2004]; Pollnow v Glennon , 757 F2d 496, 501 [2d Cir 1985]; Garraway v Smith , 2019 WL 2135479 , *4, 2019 US Dist LEXIS 82944 , *10 [WD NY, May 16, 2019, No. 12-CV-924S (WMS)]; Melendez v Fischer , 2013 WL 5592497 , *3, 2013 US Dist LEXIS 146937 , *8 [WD NY, Oct. 10, 2013, No. 13-CV-6231 (

2019Plaintiff failed to allege a claim for a civil rights violation under 42 USC § 1983 , since he failed to set forth an official policy or custom of the City that caused the officers to violate his constitutional rights ( see De Lourdes Torres , 26 NY3d at 769 ).

2019At most, plaintiff has "alleged only a single instance of wrongful conduct by a municipal employee without authority to make decisions regarding official policy" ( Saidin v Negron , 136 AD3d 458, 459 [1st Dept 2016], lv dismissed 28 NY3d 1069 [2016]).

2001Finally, with regard to plaintiffs fifth cause of action alleging a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, defendant’s impersonation of plaintiff, while undoubtedly wrongful, was not so outrageous and shocking as to constitute a basis for this claim (see, Howell v New York Post Co., 81 NY2d 115, 122 ).

2001The civil rights claim is insufficient for failure to specifically set forth an official policy or custom that caused plaintiff to be deprived of a constitutional right (see, Jackson v Police Dept., 192 AD2d 641, 642 , lv denied 82 NY2d 658 , cert denied 511 US 1004 ), and the record is simply devoid of evidence supporting the causes of action for assault by and inadequate training of police officers.

2001It is far from settled whether a Federal regulation may give rise to a Federal right enforceable under 42 USC § 1983 (see, King v Town of Hempstead, 161 F3d 112, 115 ).

2001(See, Paul v Davis, 424 US 693 [1976].) The Paul Court sustained the District Court’s dismissal of a civil rights claim pursuant to 42 USC § 1983 against the State for the distribution to merchants of a flyer captioned “Active Shoplifters” which contained petitioner’s name and photograph.

2001The Court opined that “reputation alone, apart from some more tangible interests such as employment, is either liberty’ or ‘property’ by itself sufficient to invoke the procedural protection of the Due Process Clause * * * of the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendment.” (Id. 424 US at 701-702 .) In essence, the Court has articulated that there must be more than mere stigma to trigger the protections of due process.

2001The State further contends that, in light of our decision in Paynter v State of New York (supra), the court erred in dismissing the second amended complaint against the individual school districts.

2001The civil rights claim is insufficient for failure to specifically set forth an official policy or custom that caused plaintiff to be deprived of a constitutional right (see, Jackson v Police Dept., 192 AD2d 641, 642 , lv denied 82 NY2d 658 , cert denied 511 US 1004 ), and the record is simply devoid of evidence supporting the causes of action for assault by and inadequate training of police officers.

1998Initially, it must be noted that, for purposes of defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action (see, CPLR 3211 [a] [7]), the allegations in the complaint are deemed true and are given the benefit of every possible inference (see, Rovello v Orofino Realty Co., 40 NY2d 633, 634 ; see also, Henning v Rando Mach.

1996In Mills v County of Monroe ( 59 NY2d 307, 312 , cert denied 464 US 1018 ), however, the Court concluded that County Law § 52 (1), the notice of claim provision at issue therein, was applicable to a civil rights claim which alleged discriminatory conduct relating only to the complainant who sought money damages for her lost wages and damage to her reputation.

1996(See, Miriam P. v City of New York, 163 AD2d 39 [1st Dept 1990].) Further, there was no proof that this five-month-old child was conscious of her confinement, which is one of the essential elements in order to establish a cause of action for false imprisonment.

1996Inasmuch as the complaint herein alleges discriminatory conduct relating only to complainant and seeks money damages for complainant’s lost wages and damage to her reputation, we conclude that, as in Mills v County of Monroe (supra, at 312), the complaint seeks to enforce a private right and, therefore, a notice of claim was required (see, 423 S. Salina St. v City of Syracuse, 68 NY2d 474, 493 , appeal dismissed, cert denied 481 US 1008 ; Board of Educ. v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 44 NY2d 902 , 904).

1996Inasmuch as the complaint herein alleges discriminatory conduct relating only to complainant and seeks money damages for complainant’s lost wages and damage to her reputation, we conclude that, as in Mills v County of Monroe (supra, at 312), the complaint seeks to enforce a private right and, therefore, a notice of claim was required (see, 423 S. Salina St. v City of Syracuse, 68 NY2d 474, 493 , appeal dismissed, cert denied 481 US 1008 ; Board of Educ. v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 44 NY2d 902 , 904).

1995To prevail on a claim of a civil rights violation under 42 USC § 1983 , a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant was acting "under color of state law” at the time of the acts in question (see, Zarcone v Perry, 78 AD2d 70 , affd 55 NY2d 782 , cert denied 456 US 979 ).

1995To prevail on a claim of a civil rights violation under 42 USC § 1983 , a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant was acting "under color of state law” at the time of the acts in question (see, Zarcone v Perry, 78 AD2d 70 , affd 55 NY2d 782 , cert denied 456 US 979 ).

1995To prevail on a claim of a civil rights violation under 42 USC § 1983 , a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant was acting "under color of state law” at the time of the acts in question (see, Zarcone v Perry, 78 AD2d 70 , affd 55 NY2d 782 , cert denied 456 US 979 ).

1993We have been reluctant to intrude upon reasonable editorial judgments in determining whether there is a real relationship between an article and photograph (Finger, 77 NY2d, at 143 ; see also, Gaeta v New York News, 62 NY2d 340, 349 ).

1992(D.B.C.G., Inc. v Town of Ramapo, 97 AD2d 533 ; CPLR 1001 [a], [b].) 42 USC § 1983 /SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS VIOLATION To sustain a claim for a civil rights violation under 42 USC § 1983 , the plaintiff must prove the following: (1) A deprivation of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the United States Constitution, (2) to which it was subjected or caused to be subjected by a person acting under color of State law.

1990Moreover, the court, while recognizing that plaintiff is a college graduate with considerable business experience, as well as knowledgeable about similar release letters signed by other terminated sales personnel, and that the release was supported by consideration, still perceived the existence of genuine unresolved issues of fact based largely on the failure of the release to refer clearly and unequivocably to claims such as the one presented here (that is, a civil rights violation), citing Oglesby v Coca-Cola Bottling Co. ( 620 F Supp 1336 ).

1988This was the only argument specifically advanced on appeal with respect to the sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ allegations, and "we express no opinion as to whether the allegations of the complaint are legally insufficient for any reason [not] specifically raised on this appeal” (Savino v Board of Educ., 123 AD2d 314, 315 ).

1982It is significant to note that the civil rights violation committed by the State in the Greebel matter — religious discrimination — is similar to libel and slander not only in the mental suffering of the victim but also in the economic consequences (e.g., lost income or business) (see Broderick v News Syndicate Co., 243 NY 546 ; Sanderson v Caldwell, 45 NY 398 ; Tower v Crosby, 214 App Div 392 ; Edwards X-Ray Co. v Ritter Dental Mfg.

1982It is significant to note that the civil rights violation committed by the State in the Greebel matter — religious discrimination — is similar to libel and slander not only in the mental suffering of the victim but also in the economic consequences (e.g., lost income or business) (see Broderick v News Syndicate Co., 243 NY 546 ; Sanderson v Caldwell, 45 NY 398 ; Tower v Crosby, 214 App Div 392 ; Edwards X-Ray Co. v Ritter Dental Mfg.

1982It is significant to note that the civil rights violation committed by the State in the Greebel matter — religious discrimination — is similar to libel and slander not only in the mental suffering of the victim but also in the economic consequences (e.g., lost income or business) (see Broderick v News Syndicate Co., 243 NY 546 ; Sanderson v Caldwell, 45 NY 398 ; Tower v Crosby, 214 App Div 392 ; Edwards X-Ray Co. v Ritter Dental Mfg.