Case Name: Marie R. Jemison, Individually and on Behalf of Marie S. Jemison and Others, et al., Appellants, v. Grantley E. Crichlow, Individually, as a Licensed Process Server and as a City Marshal, et al., Respondents
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1989-06-30
Citations: 74 N.Y.2d 726
Docket Number: 
Parties: Marie R. Jemison, Individually and on Behalf of Marie S. Jemison and Others, et al., Appellants, v Grantley E. Crichlow, Individually, as a Licensed Process Server and as a City Marshal, et al., Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 74
Pages: 726–728

Head Matter:
Marie R. Jemison, Individually and on Behalf of Marie S. Jemison and Others, et al., Appellants, v Grantley E. Crichlow, Individually, as a Licensed Process Server and as a City Marshal, et al., Respondents.
Argued June 7, 1989;
decided June 30, 1989
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Joel A. Siegel for appellants.
Harry Blum for Grantley E. Crichlow, respondent.
Peter L. Zimroth, Corporation Counsel, for City of New York, respondent.

Opinion:
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question answered in the affirmative.
We agree with so much of the opinion of Justice Lawrence J. Bracken at the Appellate Division (139 AD2d 332) that holds that actions against the City Marshal for acts done in an official capacity or by omission of an official duty and based on common law must be instituted within the one-year period provided by CPLR 215 (1). Plaintiff's cause of action based upon 42 USC § 1983 is not before us.
Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur in memorandum.
Order affirmed, etc. [See, 74 NY2d 828.]