Opinion
7949 Index 153321/14
12-27-2018
Raymond MARINO, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants–Respondents.
Cronin & Byczek, L.L.P., White Plains, (Linda M. Cronin of counsel), for appellant. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Antonella Karlin of counsel), for respondents.
Cronin & Byczek, L.L.P., White Plains, (Linda M. Cronin of counsel), for appellant.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Antonella Karlin of counsel), for respondents.
Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Kapnick, Kahn, Singh, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Margaret A. Chan, J.), entered March 11, 2015, which granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff's allegations of employment discrimination based on events that occurred before April 8, 2011 are time-barred under the applicable three-year statute of limitations ( CPLR 214[2] ; Administrative Code of City of N.Y. § 8–502[d]; see Jae Hee Chung v. Mary Manning Walsh Nursing Home Co., Inc., 147 A.D.3d 452, 453, 46 N.Y.S.3d 587 [1st Dept. 2017] ). The continuous violation doctrine does not apply (see Ferraro v. New York City Dept. of Educ., 115 A.D.3d 497, 982 N.Y.S.2d 746 [1st Dept. 2014] ; National R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 113–114, 122 S.Ct. 2061, 153 L.Ed.2d 106 [2002] ).
Plaintiff's timely allegations fail to state claims foremployment discrimination (see Askin v. Department of Educ. of the City of N.Y., 110 A.D.3d 621, 973 N.Y.S.2d 629 [1st Dept. 2013] [termination of employment]; Gaffney v. City of New York, 101 A.D.3d 410, 410–411, 955 N.Y.S.2d 318 [1st Dept. 2012] [hostile work environment], lv denied 21 N.Y.3d 858, 2013 WL 3185298 [2013] ). Among other things, the allegations relating to disability retirement recommendations of the Police Pension Fund's Medical Board are misdirected. The Police Pension Fund is a corporate entity independent and distinct from the police department or the City (see Administrative Code § 13–220), and is not plaintiff's employer. Defendants cannot be held liable for the Police Pension Fund's alleged adverse employment actions (see Freda v. Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 224 A.D.2d 360, 638 N.Y.S.2d 83 [1st Dept. 1996] ; Matter of New York State Teachers' Retirement Sys. v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 83 Misc.2d 993, 373 N.Y.S.2d 964 [Sup. Ct., Albany County 1975] ).