From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

BIRO v. DEPARTMENT OF S.S./HUMAN RES

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 3, 2003
1 A.D.3d 302 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2002-07891

Argued September 16, 2003.

November 3, 2003.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress, the plaintiff Andrea Biro appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Weiss, J.), entered July 23, 2002, as granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted by her pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) for failure to state a cause of action.

Andrea Biro, Ridgewood, N.Y., appellant pro se.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Stephen J. McGrath, Cheryl Payer, and Lisa Nakanishi of counsel), for respondent.

Before: A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J., NANCY E. SMITH, WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, HOWARD MILLER, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiffs commenced the instant action to recover consequential damages which allegedly resulted after the defendant improperly denied their applications for public assistance benefits. The plaintiffs alleged, inter alia, that they were evicted from their apartment as a result of the improper refusal by the defendant to pay their shelter allowance. In their complaint, they sought damages, inter alia, for negligent infliction of emotional distress.

The Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as it relates to the appellant pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) for failure to state a cause of action. Because the determination of whether an applicant is eligible for public assistance is discretionary rather than ministerial ( see Matter of Frumoff v. Wing, 239 A.D.2d 216, 217), the defendant cannot be held liable for "the injurious consequences" of its incorrect denial of such benefits ( Tango v. Tulevech, 61 N.Y.2d 34, 40). Moreover, nothing in the law allows a plaintiff to "seek consequential damages for the alleged failure of the * * * defendant to carry out its mandate in providing benefits to [her]" ( Lautner v. Catarelli, 112 Misc.2d 157, 158).

PRUDENTI, P.J., SMITH, FRIEDMANN and H. MILLER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

BIRO v. DEPARTMENT OF S.S./HUMAN RES

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 3, 2003
1 A.D.3d 302 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

BIRO v. DEPARTMENT OF S.S./HUMAN RES

Case Details

Full title:ANDREA BIRO, appellant, ET AL., plaintiffs, v. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Nov 3, 2003

Citations

1 A.D.3d 302 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
767 N.Y.S.2d 229

Citing Cases

Lau v. Human Res. Admin.

Because SNAP benefits are a governmental function for the benefit of the general public, with no statute…