Scribd
Upload
15 views1 page

Peter Michalsky v. The City of New York, 324 F.2d 496, 2d Cir. (1963)

This document is a court case summary from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. It summarizes the dismissal of an appeal from Peter Michalsky against the City of New York. The city's motion to dismiss was granted because the complaint failed to state a valid claim. Both the court and the city stated that they did not understand the basis of Michalsky's alleged cause of action. It appears to be a claim of false imprisonment with no foundation, as Michalsky had already pleaded guilty and paid a fine for jaywalking in state court. Additionally, the amount in question was insufficient to establish federal jurisdiction. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

Uploaded by

Scribd Government Docs
Copyright
© Public Domain
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
15 views1 page

Peter Michalsky v. The City of New York, 324 F.2d 496, 2d Cir. (1963)

This document is a court case summary from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. It summarizes the dismissal of an appeal from Peter Michalsky against the City of New York. The city's motion to dismiss was granted because the complaint failed to state a valid claim. Both the court and the city stated that they did not understand the basis of Michalsky's alleged cause of action. It appears to be a claim of false imprisonment with no foundation, as Michalsky had already pleaded guilty and paid a fine for jaywalking in state court. Additionally, the amount in question was insufficient to establish federal jurisdiction. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

Uploaded by

Scribd Government Docs
Copyright
© Public Domain
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

324 F.

2d 496

Peter MICHALSKY, Plaintiff-Appellant,


v.
The CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 124, Docket 28361.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.


Submitted Nov. 1, 1963.
Decided Nov. 19, 1963.

Peter Michalsky, pro se.


Leo A. Larkin, Corp. Counsel, for appellee, Seymour B. Quel, New York
City, of counsel.
Before SWAN, CLARK and MARSHALL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.

This appeal was taken on submission without argument. Defendant's motion to


dismiss was made pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure on
the ground that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be
granted. The affidavit in support of the motion stated that the affiant 'fails to
understand the basis of the cause of action of the plaintiff' and further stated
that the requirements of the General Municipal Law with respect to suing the
City had not been followed. We also do not understand the basis of the alleged
cause of action. It would seem to be a claim of false imprisonment with little or
no basis, since the plaintiff had pleaded guilty and paid a fine in the state court
for 'jay walking' at a busy street intersection in New York City. Apparently the
suit was brought in the federal court on the ground of diversity, as the plaintiff
resides in New Jersey. But the amount involved, $3,000 'doubled,' is
insufficient to support federal jurisdiction. Accordingly the appeal must be
dismissed. It is so ordered.

You might also like