| Dinerman v City of N.Y. Admin. for Children's Servs. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 04051 [50 AD3d 1087] |
| April 29, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Ira Dinerman et al., Appellants, v City of New YorkAdministration for Children's Services et al., Defendants, and Jewish Board of Family andChildren's Services, Inc., et al., Respondents. |
—[*1] Wenick & Finger, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Robert E. Fein, Frank J. Wenick, and Carol LeeChevalier of counsel), for respondent Jewish Board of Family and Children's Services, Inc. Charles J. Siegel, New York, N.Y. (Peter E. Vairo of counsel), for respondent OhelChildren's Home and Family Services.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for civil rights violations pursuant to 42 USC§ 1983, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of theSupreme Court, Kings County (Jacobson, J.), dated March 17, 2006, as granted those branches ofthe motion of the defendant Jewish Board of Family and Children's Services, Inc., and the crossmotion of the defendant Ohel Children's Home and Family Services which were for summaryjudgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.
The respondents demonstrated that the event giving rise to the plaintiffs' lawsuit, the removaland placement of their children in foster care, occurred in November 1997, and that the instantaction was commenced in May 2004. Accordingly, the respondents established, prima facie, thatthe causes of action to recover damages for misrepresentation, intentional infliction of emotionaldistress, abuse of process, and malicious prosecution were barred by the one-year statute oflimitations (see CPLR 215 [3]; Yong Wen Mo v Gee Ming Chan, 17 AD3d 356, 358 [2005];Bittner v Cummings, 188 AD2d 504 [1992]), and that the causes of action to recoverdamages for civil rights violations under 42 USC § 1983 were also barred by the three-yearstatute of limitations (see Owens v Okure, 488 US 235, 251 [1989]). In [*2]opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact.Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment dismissing the complaintinsofar as asserted against the defendants Jewish Board of Family and Children's Services, Inc.,and Ohel Children's Home and Family Services.
The plaintiffs' remaining contentions are without merit. Lifson, J.P., Covello, Angiolillo andLeventhal, JJ., concur.