VARGAS v. 1387 GRAND CONCOURSE REALTY CORP

Summary judgment was properly granted. Plaintiffs' civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 was properly rejected since they failed to show a pattern or custom of municipal indifference to shoddy inspections for lead paint or that the infant plaintiff's injuries resulted from this practice (Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 389-390; Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658; Jackson v. Police Dept., 192 A.D.2d 641, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 658, cert denied 511 U.S. 1004). While plaintiffs submitted evidence of nine claims against NYCHA, they did not adduce evidence showing that NYCHA condoned slipshod inspections or that it failed to adequately train inspectors (compare, Singleton v. City of Newburgh, 1 F. Supp.2d 300, 311; Mendoza v. City of Rome, 872 F. Supp. 1110, 1119, with Vann v. City of New York, 72 F.3d 1040, 1049; Fiacco v. City of Rensselaer, 783 F.2d 319, 328). Moreover, evidence of nine complaints submitted by plaintiffs, spanning a period of 11 years, constitute such a minuscule fraction of the 75,000 Section 8 units administered by NYCHA as not to be indicative of a pattern (see,Lewis v. Meloni, 949 F. Supp. 158, 164 [17 false arrest claims over a five year period]; Ramos v. City of Chicago, 707 F. Supp. 345, 347 [six brutality incidents over a 10-year period in a city with over 10,000 police officers]). Indeed, in two of the nine cases cited by plaintiffs, the civil rights claims against NYCHA have been dismissed.

Leave to amend the complaint was properly denied since the proposed amendment was without merit. Furthermore, plaintiffs' hope of uncovering constitutional violations during discovery is insufficient to defeat summary judgment (Rotuba Extruders v. Ceppos, 46 N.Y.2d 223; Cadle Co. v. Hoffman, 237 A.D.2d 555).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.