Tipaldo v. Lynn

3 Citing cases

  1. Anderson v. Townsend

    21-cv-03569 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 17, 2021)   Cited 2 times

    Id. at 130. Compl. ¶¶ 6, 9; see, e.g., DOC Directive 7504R-A §§ III(D)(5); cf Tipaldo v. Lynn, 284 A.D.2d 142, 142 (1st Dept. 2001) (upholding trial judge's conclusion that plaintiff failed to show that either the Commissioner or First Deputy Commissioner of the New York City Department of Transportation exercises final policymaking authority as to that agency's personnel actions). Conclusion

  2. Tipaldo v. Lynn

    8 A.D.3d 36 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

    Before: Nardelli, J.P., Saxe, Williams, Friedman, Sweeny, JJ. In reviewing the denial of a prior similar motion to amend, we found that plaintiff had failed to make any showing that the City defendants had a policy or custom of retaliating against municipal employees for reporting perceived conduct violations by fellow employees ( see Tipaldo v. Lynn, 284 A.D.2d 142). Indeed, we observed that the City's investigation of plaintiff's demotion, its attendant findings and resulting offer to compromise suggested that there was no official custom or practice of retaliatory conduct by the City ( id.). Inasmuch as plaintiff's present motion to amend is affected by the same deficiency as its predecessor, we perceive no reason to reach a different conclusion as to its merit. THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

  3. Tipaldo v. Lynn

    2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 30746 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2006)   Cited 2 times

    Tipaldo's sole claim is an alleged violation of the Whistleblower Statute (see Tipaldo v Lynn, 284 AD2d 142 [1st Dept 2001]), later proceeding, 8 AD3d 36 [1st Dept 2004]). The Whistleblower Statute, prohibits the removal or any other disciplinary action against a civil service employee except for incompetency or misconduct.