Opinion
April 20, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.).
Since with respect to his fourth cause of action alleging a due process violation plaintiff failed to follow the mandate of Public Housing Law § 157 (1), which requires that the complaint allege that a claim was timely presented to the Authority and that the Authority failed to satisfy said claim before an action is commenced against the Authority, and since plaintiff also failed to actually give timely notice of said claim to the Authority, dismissal was warranted (see, Davidson v Bronx Mun. Hosp., 64 N.Y.2d 59; Reaves v City of New York, 177 A.D.2d 437). In addition, plaintiff's alleged due process cause of action only seeks to protect his own personal rights, and thus the public interest exception to Public Housing Law § 157 (1) is clearly inapplicable here (see, e.g., 423 S. Salina St. v City of Syracuse, 68 N.Y.2d 474, 493, cert denied 481 U.S. 1008).
We also note that even if plaintiff had complied with the notice requirements, his purported due process violation claim fails to sufficiently state a cause of action. Not only has plaintiff failed to adequately demonstrate that a valid property interest had been violated at the time of his alleged on-the-job injury sustained in July 1986 (see, Grossman v Axelrod, 646 F.2d 768, 770 [2d Cir]), it appears that plaintiff's due process claim is merely an attempt to recast his previously dismissed negligence cause of action and accordingly, it is barred by the doctrine of res judicata (see, Romano v Astoria Fed. Sav. Loan Assn., 111 A.D.2d 751, appeal dismissed 66 N.Y.2d 916; Smith v Russell Sage Coll., 54 N.Y.2d 185).
We have considered plaintiff's other claims and find them to be meritless.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Wallach, Asch and Williams, JJ.