From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sheridan v. Town of Orangetown

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 1, 2005
21 A.D.3d 365 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)

Opinion

August 1, 2005.

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (O'Rourke, J.), dated April 9, 2004, as, in effect, granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) to dismiss the complaint.

Before: Adams, J.P., Krausman, Spolzino and Fisher, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

To succeed on a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1), the documentary evidence that forms the basis of the defense must be such that it resolves all factual issues as a matter of law, and conclusively disposes of the plaintiff's claim ( see Leon v. Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88; Roth v. Goldman, 254 AD2d 405). Here, the plaintiff, a retired police officer who previously was employed by the defendant, commenced this action following the defendant's termination of certain benefits. The documentary evidence established, however, that the plaintiff's claim was governed by a collective bargaining agreement and he failed to pursue the grievance procedure contained therein and exhaust his administrative remedies ( see Manfro v. McGivney, 11 AD3d 662; Matter of O'Connor v. Police Commn. of Town of Clarkstown, 301 AD2d 654; Formica v. Town of Huntington, 295 AD2d 400). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) to dismiss the complaint.


Summaries of

Sheridan v. Town of Orangetown

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 1, 2005
21 A.D.3d 365 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
Case details for

Sheridan v. Town of Orangetown

Case Details

Full title:TIMOTHY SHERIDAN, Appellant, v. TOWN OF ORANGETOWN, Respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Aug 1, 2005

Citations

21 A.D.3d 365 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
799 N.Y.S.2d 575

Citing Cases

Murray v. Town of N. Castle

Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the grievance procedure set forth in the CBA was applicable to these…

Murray v. Town of N. Castle

Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the grievance procedure set forth in the CBA was applicable to these…