IVETTE SANTIAGO-MENDEZ, plf-ap, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK def-res

113. IVETTE SANTIAGO-MENDEZ, plf-ap, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK def-res — Cronin & Byczek, LLP, Lake Success (Moshe C. Bobker of counsel), for ap — Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Dona B. Morris of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Frank R. Nervo, J.), entered July 16, 2014, which granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously modified, on the law, to deny the motion to dismiss plaintiff's nontime-barred claims for race, national origin, and gender discrimination as against defendants the City of New York, Lieutenant Ahern, and Captain Kelly, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

113. IVETTE SANTIAGO-MENDEZ, plf-ap, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK def-res — Cronin & Byczek, LLP, Lake Success (Moshe C. Bobker of counsel), for ap — Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Dona B. Morris of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Frank R. Nervo, J.), entered July 16, 2014, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously modified, on the law, to deny the motion to dismiss plaintiff’s nontime-barred claims for race, national origin, and gender discrimination as against defendants the City of New York, Lieutenant Ahern, and Captain Kelly, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, a Hispanic woman, was a New York City Police Department (NYPD) detective who retired in July 2012. Plaintiff filed the complaint in this action on August 28, 2013. Her allegations of matters occurring before August 28, 2010 are time-barred, since the statute of limitations for claims under both the State and City Human Rights Law (HRL) is three years (see CPLR 214[2]; Administrative Code of the City of NY §8-502[d]; Mascola v. City Univ. of N.Y., 14 AD3d 409, 409 [1st Dept 2005][State HRL]; Herrington v. Metro-North Commuter R.R. Co., 118 AD3d 544, 544 [1st Dept 2014][City HRL]). Plaintiff failed to preserve her argument that the continuous violation doctrine applies, and, in any event, the argument lacks merit (see generally Ferraro v. New York City Dept. of Educ., 115 AD3d 497, 497-498 [1st Dept 2014]; see also National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. Morgan, 536 US 101, 113-114 [2002]).

IVETTE SANTIAGO-MENDEZ, plf-ap, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK def-res

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal