# Vaizburd v. City of New York

> Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · October 12, 2004 · 110 F. App'x 199

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8428323

## Case

- **Full name:** Linda and Arkady VAIZBURD v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Environmental Control Board of the City of New York, John Doe Individually and as Borough Commissioner of the Department of Buildings of the City of New York, John Doe(s) and as Building Inspector of the City of New York, John Doe, Individually and as Director of the Environmental Control Board of the City of New York, John Does, and as Officials of of Environmental Control Board of the City of New York
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
- **Decided:** October 12, 2004
- **Citations:** 110 F. App'x 199
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8428323

## Opinion text

SUMMARY ORDER
Linda and Arkady Vaizburd, pro se, appeal the judgment of the district court granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 , and 1985. The parties’ familiarity with the facts is assumed.
An independent review of the record, and relevant case law leads us to affirm the district court’s decision to grant the City, DOB and ECB’s motion to dismiss the Vaizburds’ complaint.
*200 The district court should permit the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint in this action, alleging the unreasonable search and seizure of their residence on October 24, 2001 (the only viable claim remaining) and naming the proper defendants. While Rule 15(c) limits the circumstances in which an amended complaint relates back to the filing of the original pleading, relation back should not be a concern if the amendment is filed within the time allotted by the statute of limitations, which appears to expire on October 23, 2004.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8428323. Public record. Not legal advice.