Reset A A Font size: Print

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

Lillian ROBERTS, as Executive Director of District Council 37, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, et al., Petitioners-Appellants, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Respondents-Respondents.

Edna Williams, as President of Local 1597 of District Council 37, et al., Petitioners-Appellants, v. City of New York, et al., Respondents-Respondents.

Decided: June 21, 2005

TOM, J.P., SAXE, FRIEDMAN, NARDELLI, SWEENY, JJ. Joel Giller and Eddie M. Demmings, New York (Mary J. O'Connell of counsel), for appellants. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Fay Ng of counsel), for respondents.

Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.), entered January 20, 2004, which dismissed petitioners' article 78 applications, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

 To state a cause of action under Social Services Law § 336-c(2)(e)(i), it is incumbent upon petitioners to specify the employees who were allegedly displaced by the WEP workers as well as, for the purposes of the statute of limitations, when they were displaced (Rosenthal v. City of New York, 283 A.D.2d 156, 725 N.Y.S.2d 20 [2001], lv. dismissed 97 N.Y.2d 654, 737 N.Y.S.2d 54, 762 N.E.2d 932 [2001];  see also Roberts v. City of New York, 20 A.D.3d 44, 797 N.Y.S.2d 454 [Appeal Nos. 4362-4363, decided simultaneously herewith] ).

 Petitioners in Roberts herein did not identify any employees displaced by WEP workers.   Petitioners in Williams, although identifying two employees allegedly displaced by WEP workers, failed to set forth when that displacement took place, or the particular WEP workers who allegedly replaced them.   Accordingly, the pleading fails to state sufficient facts, and having failed to meet the pleading requirements set forth in our prior decisions, the IAS court correctly dismissed the petitions.