Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 18, 2022

Snyder v. Adams

Judge
Lewis Kaplan
Docket
1:22-cv-03873
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Snyder v. Adams, Judge Kaplan dismissed claims against four city agencies because they are not suable entities distinct from New York City.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs’ action against the four listed New York City agencies was dismissed. The opinion does not state the effect on claims against other defendants.

What happened

In Snyder v. Adams, the court dismissed the action against the New York City Department of Design and Construction, the New York City Department of Cultural Affairs, the New York City Public Design Commission, and the New York City Department of Correction.

The court ruled that none of those agencies is a suable entity separate from the City of New York. The order does not describe the plaintiffs’ claims or state what claims, if any, remain against other defendants.

Judge Lewis A. Kaplan entered the order on May 18, 2022.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Snyder v. Adams · No. 1:22-cv-03873
Judge
Lewis Kaplan
Date
May 18, 2022

What the Court Decided

The court dismissed the action insofar as it was brought against four named city agencies:

- New York City Department of Design and Construction - New York City Department of Cultural Affairs - New York City Public Design Commission, formally known as the Art Commission of the City of New York - New York City Department of Correction

Reasoning

The court held that none of these agencies is a suable entity distinct from the City of New York. It cited decisions from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and the New York City Charter in support of that conclusion.

Scope of the Order

The order dismisses the action only insofar as it was brought against the four listed agencies. The opinion does not provide factual background, identify the underlying claims, or state what claims, if any, remain against other defendants. The order does not specify whether the dismissal is with or without prejudice.

Disposition

The action was dismissed as to the New York City Department of Design and Construction, New York City Department of Cultural Affairs, New York City Public Design Commission, and New York City Department of Correction.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.