Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Angel NUNEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants-Respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael D. Stallman, J.), entered July 31, 2006, which granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied, the matter converted to a contempt proceeding, and remanded for a hearing thereon.
Plaintiff, a former Sanitation employee, brought this action in 1999, alleging defendants had failed to comply with a prior judgment of this Court (Matter of City of New York v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 229 A.D.2d 307, 645 N.Y.S.2d 14 [1996], lv. denied 89 N.Y.2d 801, 653 N.Y.S.2d 278, 675 N.E.2d 1231 [1996] ) that ordered reinstatement to his former position or appointment to an alternative position with comparable rank, pay and benefits. Plaintiff has not been reinstated to his former position or its equivalent.
The complaint was dismissed on grounds, inter alia, that plaintiff, an attorney, had waited 15 months before bringing the action, was himself responsible for the delay in bringing it to the attention of the Court by failing to file a request for judicial intervention, and was thus guilty of laches. This erroneous analysis overlooks the fact that both plaintiff and defendants had contributed to the delay.
Plaintiff's recourse was a contempt proceeding. It was futile to insist that he bring a new complaint with the Division of Human Rights before seeking enforcement. Under these circumstances, the court's refusal to exercise its jurisdiction to convert this improperly brought action into its proper form (see CPLR 103[c] ) was an abuse of discretion. In remanding this matter, we do not pass, on this record, on the merits of a contempt proceeding.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: September 27, 2007
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)