Stevenson v. City of Rome
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Although Supreme Court properly granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, it should have done so pursuant to CPLR 3211 (c), rather than CPLR 3211 (a) (7). Defendants established that the City of Rome had withdrawn its decision to reduce the position held by plaintiff to part-time and to enforce a residency requirement against plaintiff some five months before this action was commenced, and plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). Because plaintiff has not prevailed…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Zuckerman v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1980
- Johnson v. BlumNew York Court of Appeals · 1983
- Block v. NelsonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1979
- Kilafofski v. BlackburneAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994
- Fisk v. SlyeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996
3Cited by1 opinion
- Stevenson v. City of RomeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997