Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Morring v. Cuomo

United States District Court, Second Circuit

August 5, 2013

PATRICIA G. MORRING, Plaintiff,
v.
ANDREW M. CUOMO, in his capacity as Governor and Head of the Executive Department of the State of New York; NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL (DHCR); DARYL C. TOWNS, in his capacity as Commissioner of DHCR; GERALD M. BURKE, in his capacity as Director of Resources Management of DHCR; KATHELEEN MALINOSKI, Director of Personnel of DHCR; SARAH MCCRAY; MICHAEL ROSENBLATT, : Unit Head of one of the Rent Administration Units of the DHCR; and DISTRICT COUNCIL (DC) 37, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, Defendants.

Edward A. Roberts, Law Office of Edward A. Roberts, Brooklyn, NY, for plaintiff.

Michael Adam Berg, Office of the Attorney General, New York State, New York, NY, for defendants Governor Andrew M. Cuomo, the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, Commissioner Darryl C. Towns, Gerald M. Burke, Kathleen Malinoski, Sarah McCray, and Michael Rosenblatt.

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER

DENISE COTE, District Judge.

Before the Court is a June 7, 2013, motion to dismiss filed by defendants Governor Andrew M. Cuomo, the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, Commissioner Darryl C. Towns, Gerald M. Burke, Kathleen Malinoski, Sarah McCray, and Michael Rosenblatt (collectively, the "State Defendants"). For the following reasons, the motion is granted.

BACKGROUND

The complaint alleges that on March 25, 2009, plaintiff Patricia G. Morring, an employee of the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, was summoned to a meeting with defendants McCray and Rosenblatt and was told that she "was a danger to her place of employment" and was being placed on immediate suspension. A letter Morring received from defendant Malinoski dated March 25 explained that the suspension was due to a comment Morring had made that was "threatening in nature." An April 1 letter from defendant Burke was more explicit; it explained that Morring's co-workers had reported hearing Morring say that she was "bringing in bullets and each bullet will have a name on it." Morring was reinstated two weeks later and continues to work in the same post. She was paid during her involuntary leave, her wages were not docked, and she was not required to use any sick days, personal days, or vacation days.

Morring filed her complaint on April 5, 2013, alleging violations of her rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, as applied to the defendants through 42 U.S.C. ยงยง 1981, 1983, and 1988, as well as violations of the duty of fair representation on the part of defendant District Council 37, AFSCME, AFL-CIO ("the Union").

On May 6, the Union filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. Plaintiff failed to oppose the motion, or to request an extension of time in which to submit her opposition. On June 10, the Court granted the Union's motion.

On June 7, the State Defendants filed their own motion to dismiss. On June 11, the Court issued an Order directing plaintiff to either oppose the motion or file an amended complaint by June 28. Plaintiff did neither, and on July 2, Chambers staff reached plaintiff's counsel by telephone and was told that plaintiff's opposition to the motion to dismiss would be filed that day. To date, plaintiff has made no submission in response to the motion to dismiss, which is granted for the reasons that follow.

DISCUSSION

I. Eleventh Amendment Immunity

Under the Eleventh Amendment, "state governments may not be sued in federal court unless they have waived their Eleventh Amendment immunity or unless Congress has abrogated [that immunity]." Gollomp v. Spitzer , 568 F.3d 355, 366 (2d Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). This bar extends to suits against state agencies, branches of state government, and state officials sued in their official capacities. Id. at 366-67.

The Eleventh Amendment therefore bars Morring's claims against the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, which is unquestionably a branch of the state government, as well as Governor Cuomo, Commissioner Towns, Malinoski, and Burke, all of whom are explicitly sued in their official capacities for money damages. The only ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.