Summary
In Wiltz, the pro se Plaintiffs Complaint containing, amongst other causes of action, claims under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws for alleged disability discrimination, was dismissed for his failure to appear at a status conference.
Summary of this case from Walker v. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Authority.Opinion
13051 Index No. 0260201/19 Case No. 2020-00061
02-04-2021
Randall WILTZ, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY, et al., Defendants–Respondents
Randall Wiltz, appellant pro se. James E. Johnson, Corporation Counsel, New York (Zachary S. Shapiro of counsel), for respondents.
Randall Wiltz, appellant pro se.
James E. Johnson, Corporation Counsel, New York (Zachary S. Shapiro of counsel), for respondents.
Manzanet–Daniels, J.P., Singh, Kennedy, Mendez, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mitchell J. Danziger, J.), entered on or about December 9, 2019, which denied plaintiff's motion to vacate an order dismissing the complaint for failure to appear at a conference, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
While it is undisputed that plaintiff had a reasonable excuse for not appearing at a status conference, he cannot show a meritorious cause of action, as required to vacate his default, because his claims are barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel (see Bikman v. 595 Broadway Assoc., 88 A.D.3d 455, 930 N.Y.S.2d 435 [1st Dept. 2011], lv denied 21 N.Y.3d 856, 2013 WL 2350333 [2013] ). Plaintiff's federal claims against the City of New York and the State of New York, under 42 USC §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, and 1986, were previously litigated and decided on the merits in federal court ( Wiltz v. New York Univ., 2019 WL 721658, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17711 [S.D. N.Y.2019], report and recommendation adopted 2019 WL 720700, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26958 [S.D. N.Y.2019] ). His claims under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws (HRL) are barred by res judicata, because he had a full and fair opportunity to litigate these claims in his federal action, where he brought virtually identical claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990(ADA) (see Gropper v. 200 Fifth Owner LLC, 151 A.D.3d 635, 58 N.Y.S.3d 42 [1st Dept. 2017] ). These claims are also barred by collateral estoppel, because the federal court addressed the issues raised in the State HRL claims in rendering its decision on the ADA claims (see Emmons v. Broome County, 180 A.D.3d 1213, 119 N.Y.S.3d 273 [3d Dept. 2020] [finding HRL claims barred by collateral estoppel because based upon same theories as ADA claims raised in prior federal action]; see also Pimentel v. Citibank, N.A., 29 A.D.3d 141, 147 n. 2, 811 N.Y.S.2d 381 [1st Dept. 2006], lv denied 7 N.Y.3d 707, 821 N.Y.S.2d 813, 854 N.E.2d 1277 [2006] ).