Opinion
2011-11-10
In re Leonard FINKEL, Petitioner–Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, Respondent–Respondent,New York State Division of Human Rights, Respondent.
The Rosenthal Law Firm, PC, New York (Douglas Rosenthal of counsel), for appellant. Sonya M. Kaloyanides, New York (Mindy Merdinger Blackstock of counsel), for respondent.
The Rosenthal Law Firm, PC, New York (Douglas Rosenthal of counsel), for appellant. Sonya M. Kaloyanides, New York (Mindy Merdinger Blackstock of counsel), for respondent.
TOM, J.P., ANDRIAS, ACOSTA, FREEDMAN, RICHTER, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Jaffe, J.), entered November 4, 2010, dismissing this article 78 proceeding to annul respondent New York State Division of Human Rights' determination, dated April 23, 2010, which dismissed petitioner's complaint for lack of jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The court correctly determined that the complaint filed with respondent New York State Division of Human Rights in 2010 was barred under the doctrine of res judicata because the complaints filed by petitioner in federal court in 1990 and 1991 were based on the same transaction as the 2010 petition, and were dismissed on the merits ( see Zito v. Fischbein Badillo Wagner Harding, 80 A.D.3d 520, 521, 915 N.Y.S.2d 260 [2011]; Bettis v. Kelly, 68 A.D.3d 578, 579, 891 N.Y.S.2d 364 [2009] ). Moreover, the 2010 complaint fails to allege any additional damages that were separate and distinct from those generated by respondent New York City Housing Authority's misconduct in 1988 ( see Lusk v. Weinstein, 85 A.D.3d 445, 446, 924 N.Y.S.2d 91 [2011], lv. denied 17 N.Y.3d 709, 2011 WL 4089837 [2011] ).
Contrary to petitioner's contention, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 (the Fair Pay Act) does not apply to payments made pursuant to a pension structure because the language of the statute itself provides that “[n]othing in this Act is intended to change current law treatment of when pension distributions are considered paid” (Pub L 111–2, § 2[4] [2009] ). Instead, “ ‘[t]he [Fair Pay] Act preserves the existing law concerning when a discriminatory pension distribution or payment occurs, i.e., upon retirement, not upon the issuance of each check’ ” ( Zimmelman v. Teachers' Retirement Sys., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29791, *30, 2010 WL 1172769, *10 [S.D.N.Y.2010], quoting Tomlinson v. El Paso Corp., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77341, *9, 2009 WL 2766718, *3 [D. Colo. 2009]; see Sullivan v. City of New York, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36383, *8–10 [S.D.N.Y.2011] ). Since petitioner began receiving retirement compensation in 1996, the Fair Pay Act does not “reset” the statute of limitations for the claims related to failure to pay back wages ordered in a prior action, or any of the other claims.