In the Matter of George v. Bloomberg

12 Citing cases

  1. Jurist v. Long Island Power Auth.

    538 F. Supp. 3d 254 (E.D.N.Y. 2021)   Cited 1 times

    In addition, plaintiffs cannot bring an Article 78 challenge under a federal law that contains no private right of action. SeeMatter of E. Ramapo Cent. Sch. Dist. v. King, 130 A.D.3d 19, 11 N.Y.S.3d 284, 286, 288 (2015) (holding that the plaintiff could not bring an Article 78 action alleging violations of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA") because the IDEA did not contain a private right of action and no implied right of action exists); George v. Bloomberg, 2 A.D.3d 294, 769 N.Y.S.2d 535, 536 (2003) (holding that the plaintiffs could not bring an Article 78 proceeding to challenge the City of New York's plans for federal child development grant funds because the relevant federal statute — the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act, 42 USC § 9858 et seq. — did not provide for an express or implied private right of action); see also35-41 Clarkson LLC v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth., No. 11-CV-6770, 2012 WL 5992094, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2012) ("Although interpretation of [the] plaintiffs’ [housing assistance payment] contracts

  2. Churches United for Fair Hous., Inc. v. De Blasio

    180 A.D.3d 549 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)   Cited 1 times

    As conceded by the parties, there is no express or implied private right of action for enforcement of 42 USC § 3608, the Federal Housing Act's provision requiring the Department of Housing and Urban Development to affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH) (see 42 USC §§ 3602 [f], 3613[a][1][A]; Latinos Unidos De Chelsea En Accion (Lucha) v. Secretary of Hous. & Urban Dev., 799 F.2d 774, 791–792 [1st Cir. 1986] ; MHANY Mgt. v. County of Nassau, 843 F Supp 2d 287, 333 [E.D.N.Y.2012], affd in part, vacated on other grounds in part 819 F.3d 581 [2d Cir. 2016] ). Because there is no private right of action for enforcement of Section 3608—let alone any "unambiguously conferred right"—petitioners may not use 42 USC § 1983 as a mechanism to sue for enforcement of section 3608 ( Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273, 283, 122 S.Ct. 2268, 153 L.Ed.2d 309 [2002] ; accordMatter of George v. Bloomberg , 2 A.D.3d 294, 294, 769 N.Y.S.2d 535 [1st Dept. 2003], lv denied 2 N.Y.3d 707, 781 N.Y.S.2d 289, 814 N.E.2d 461 [2004] ; seeMHANY, 843 F Supp 2d at 336–337 ; South Middlesex Opportunity Council, Inc. v. Town of Framingham, 2008 WL 4595369, at *17, 2008 U.S. Dist LEXIS 85764, at *51-52 [D.Mass. 2008] ).

  3. In the Matter of George v. Bloomberg

    814 N.E.2d 461 (N.Y. 2004)

    Decided June 8, 2004. Appeal from the 1st Dept: 2 AD3d 294. Motion for leave to appeal denied.

  4. Malone v. City of New York

    192 A.D.3d 510 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)   Cited 1 times

    Moreover, while impact studies can provide a rational basis for a rule, they are not required (seeMatter of Consolation Nursing Home, Inc. v. Commissioner of N.Y. State Dept. of Health, 85 N.Y.2d 326, 332, 624 N.Y.S.2d 563, 648 N.E.2d 1326 [1995] ). Petitioners’ claim that respondents violated the City Administrative Procedure Act (New York City Charter §§ 1041–1047) by failing to conduct a specific type of outreach to the horse carriage industry (see id. § 1043[e][i]) is barred by the very provision they cite, which expressly precludes a private right of action to enforce the Act's provisions (see generally Matter ofGeorge v. Bloomberg, 2 A.D.3d 294, 769 N.Y.S.2d 535 [1st Dept. 2003], lv denied 2 N.Y.3d 707, 781 N.Y.S.2d 289, 814 N.E.2d 461 [2004] ; Hill v. Giuliani, 272 A.D.2d 157, 157, 708 N.Y.S.2d 855 [1st Dept. 2000] ; cf. Matter ofPatrolmen's Benevolent Assn. of the City of N.Y. v. de Blasio, 171 A.D.3d 636, 636, 101 N.Y.S.3d 280 [1st Dept. 2019] [article 78 review not precluded where "statute creates protected rights and does not explicitly prohibit a private right of action"], lv dismissed 35 N.Y.3d 979, 125 N.Y.S.3d 69, 148 N.E.3d 533 [2020] ). We have considered petitioners’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

  5. Churches United for Fair Hous., Inc. v. De Blasio

    2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 31865 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2018)

    However, the law in New York is that if there is no private right of action under a federal statute, an Article 78 Proceeding seeking to enforce it will not lie. E.g. George v Bloomberg, 2 AD3d 294, 294 (1st Dept 2003) (rejecting the argument that a CPLR Article 78 Proceeding could be brought based on a statute that does not create a private right of action); Matter of E. Ramapo Cent. Sch. Dist. v King, 130 AD3d 19, 20 (3d Dept 2015) (Peters, P.J.) (dismissing CPLR Article 78 Proceeding because there was no underlying private right of action), aff'd on other grounds, 29 NYS3d 938 (2017) (failure to exhaust administrative remedies; lack of concrete injury); Home Care Assn. v Bane, 218 AD2d 106, 110-11 (3d Dept 1995) (dismissing Article 78 proceeding for lack of a private right of action). Plaintiffs' reliance on Broadway Triangle Community Coalition v Bloomberg, 35 Misc3d 167 (Sup Ct, NY County 2011) (Emily Jane Goodman, J.) (see infra), for the proposition that "courts have allowed plaintiffs to proceed under CPLR Article 78 upon challenges to the City of New York's compliance with its [AFFH] duty" seems misplaced, as Justice Goodman's opinion does not even mention CPLR Article 78. Plaintiffs se

  6. Churches United for Fair Hous., Inc. v. De Blasio

    2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 31826 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2018)   Cited 1 times

    However, the law in New York is that if there is no private right of action under a federal statute, an Article 78 Proceeding seeking to enforce it will not lie. E.g. George v Bloomberg, 2 AD3d 294, 294 (1st Dept 2003) (rejecting the argument that a CPLR Article 78 Proceeding could be brought based on a statute that does not create a private right of action); Matter of E. Ramapo Cent. Sch. Dist. v King, 130 AD3d 19, 20 (3d Dept 2015) (Peters, P.J.) (dismissing CPLR Article 78 Proceeding because there was no underlying private right of action), aff'd on other grounds, 29 NYS3d 938 (2017) (failure to exhaust administrative remedies; lack of concrete injury); Home Care Assn. v Bane, 218 AD2d 106, 110-11 (3d Dept 1995) (dismissing Article 78 proceeding for lack of a private right of action). Plaintiffs' reliance on Broadway Triangle Community Coalition v Bloomberg, 35 Misc3d 167 (Sup Ct, NY County 2011) (Emily Jane Goodman, J.) (see infra), for the proposition that "courts have allowed plaintiffs to proceed under CPLR Article 78 upon challenges to the City of New York's compliance with its [AFFH] duty" seems misplaced, as Justice Goodman's opinion does not even mention CPLR Article 78. Plaintiffs se

  7. McFadden v. Schneiderman

    54 N.Y.S.3d 610 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2016)

    Since this provision denies plaintiff a private right of action for a violation of 7 N.Y.C.R.R. § 5.24, he may not pursue this action for such a violation. See Uhr v. East Greenbush Cent. School Dist., 94 N.Y.2d 32, 42 (1999) ; Hoxie's Painting Co. v. Cato–Meridian Cent. School Dist., 76 N.Y.2d 207, 213–14 (1990) ; Rhodes v. Herz, 84 AD3d 1, 13 (1st Dep't 2011) ; George v. Bloomberg, 2 AD3d 294, 294–95 (1st Dep't 2003). Even if plaintiff were permitted to pursue this action, 7 N.Y.C.R .R. § 5.24 allowed the OAG defendants to obtain his medical records.

  8. McFadden v. Schneiderman

    2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 51872 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2016)

    Since this provision denies plaintiff a private right of action for a violation of 7 N.Y.C.R.R. § 5.24, he may not pursue this action for such a violation. See Uhr v. East Greenbush Cent. School Dist., 94 NY2d 32, 42 (1999); Hoxie's Painting Co. v. Cato-Meridian Cent. School Dist., 76 NY2d 207, 213-14 (1990); Rhodes v. Herz, 84 AD3d 1, 13 (1st Dep't 2011); George v. Bloomberg, 2 AD3d 294, 294-95 (1st Dep't 2003).

  9. Thomas v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ.

    55 Misc. 3d 171 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2016)

    Horne v. Flores, 557 U.S. at 456 n. 6, 129 S.Ct. 2579 ; Blakely v. Wells, 380 Fed.Appx. at 8 ; Newark Parents Ass'n v. Newark Public Schools, 547 F.3d at 214 ; Association of Community Orgs. for Reform Now v. New York City Dept. of Educ., 269 F.Supp.2d at 345–46. See Uhr v. East Greenbush Cent. School Dist., 94 N.Y.2d 32, 42, 698 N.Y.S.2d 609, 720 N.E.2d 886 (1999) ; Brian Hoxie's Painting Co. v. Cato–Meridian Cent. School Dist., 76 N.Y.2d 207, 213–14, 557 N.Y.S.2d 280, 556 N.E.2d 1087 (1990) ; Rhodes v. Herz, 84 A.D.3d 1, 13, 920 N.Y.S.2d 11 (1st Dep't 2011) ; George v. Bloomberg, 2 A.D.3d 294, 294–95, 769 N.Y.S.2d 535 (1st Dep't 2003). "NCLB is enforceable only by the agency charged with enforcing it": USDOE.

  10. N.Y. County Lawyers' v. Bloomberg

    30 Misc. 3d 161 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2010)   Cited 5 times

    To determine whether a party has standing, the court must examine the relevant statutes and precedents in order to ascertain the presence or absence of a legislative intention to preclude review ( see for example Matter of George v Bloomberg, 2 AD3d 294 [1st Dept 2003]). "Only where there is a clear legislative intent negating review or lack of injury in fact will standing be denied" ( Matter of Dairylea Coop, v Walkley, 38 NY2d 6, 11 [internal citations omitted]).