Opinion
No. 2023-03480 Index No. 1786/19
10-09-2024
Abdus Shahid, appellant, v. City of New York, et al., respondents.
Abdus Shahid, Brooklyn, NY, appellant pro se. Muriel Goode-Trufant, Acting Corporation Counsel, New York, NY (Susan Paulson and Josh Liebman of counsel), for respondents.
Abdus Shahid, Brooklyn, NY, appellant pro se.
Muriel Goode-Trufant, Acting Corporation Counsel, New York, NY (Susan Paulson and Josh Liebman of counsel), for respondents.
BETSY BARROS, J.P. JOSEPH J. MALTESE PAUL WOOTEN DEBORAH A. DOWLING, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for discrimination based upon race and/or national origin, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and injury to property, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Consuelo Mallafre Melendez, J.), dated January 9, 2023. The order granted the defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff commenced this action against the defendants, City of New York and William Muniz, a City attorney, to recover damages for discrimination based upon race and/or national original, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and injury to his building. The defendants moved pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint. In an order dated January 9, 2023, the Supreme Court granted the motion. The plaintiff appeals.
The plaintiff failed to serve an adequate notice of claim with respect to alleged damages to his building (see Curry v Town of Oyster Bay, 216 A.D.3d 617). The notice of claim was limited to the plaintiff's allegation that the defendants sent him false and fabricated reports of violations and repair bills concerning the building. "[C]auses of action or legal theories may not be raised in the complaint that were not directly or indirectly mentioned in the notice of claim and that change the nature of the claim or assert a new one" (Washington v City of New York, 190 A.D.3d 1009, 1011; see Mazzilli v City of New York, 154 A.D.2d 355, 357).
Further, the Supreme Court properly granted dismissal of the cause of action sounding in intentional infliction of emotional distress. "[P]ublic policy bars claims sounding in intentional infliction of emotional distress against a governmental entity" (Lauer v City of New York, 240 A.D.2d 543, 544; see Shahid v City of New York, 208 A.D.3d 1380; Matter of Gottlieb v City of New York, 129 A.D.3d 724, 727).
Moreover, the plaintiff's allegations of discrimination based upon race and/or national origin were conclusory in nature and were insufficient to state a cause of action (see Kamen v Berkeley Coop. Towers Section II Corp., 98 A.D.3d 1086, 1087; Goldin v Engineers Country Club, 54 A.D.3d 658).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions need not be addressed in light of our determination.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint.
BARROS, J.P., MALTESE, WOOTEN and DOWLING, JJ., concur.