IN RE: Maurice G. Lewis (2026)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

IN RE: Maurice G. Lewis, appellant, v. New York City Transit Authority, et al., respondents.

2023–08025 (Index No. 166 /21)

Decided: August 19, 2026

VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P. LINDA CHRISTOPHER LOURDES M. VENTURA DONNA–MARIE E. GOLIA, JJ.

Maurice G. Lewis, Valley Stream, NY, appellant pro se. David I. Farber, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Byron Z. Zinonos of counsel), for respondent New York City Transit Authority. Gladstein, Reif & Meginniss, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Kent Y. Hirozawa of counsel), for respondents International Amalgamated Transit Union and Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1056.

Argued—February 10, 2026

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, the petitioner appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Richard Velasquez, J.), dated June 27, 2023. The order and judgment, inter alia, granted the motion of the New York City Transit Authority to dismiss the petition insofar as asserted against it and the separate motion of International Amalgamated Transit Union and Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1056 to dismiss the petition insofar as asserted against them, denied the petition, and dismissed the proceeding.

ORDERED that the order and judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

On appeal, the petitioner does not challenge the Supreme Court's determination to grant the motion of the New York City Transit Authority to dismiss the petition insofar as asserted against it and the separate motion of International Amalgamated Transit Union and Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1056 to dismiss the petition insofar as asserted against them. Rather, the petitioner's sole contention on appeal, in effect, is that this proceeding should be converted into a plenary action, and he should be granted leave to file an amended complaint to assert a cause of action to recover damages for breach of contract. However, the petitioner did not raise this contention before the Supreme Court and, in any event, such relief would not be appropriate under the circumstances.

BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, VENTURA and GOLIA, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

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.

Explore the Network