Coddington v. Crosson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Coddington v. Crosson

183 A.D.2d 428

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 7, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 183 A.D.2d 428 (Coddington v. Crosson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Coddington v. Crosson, 183 A.D.2d 428 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. Greenfield, J.), entered April 12, 1991, which granted respondents’ cross motion to dismiss the petition, without prejudice to the institution of a new proceeding upon petitioners exhausting their administrative remedies, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioners, Secretaries to Judges (JG-14) employed in the Nassau County District Court, were not directly affected by the Chief Administrative Judge’s reclassification of secretaries in the Family, County and Surrogate’s Courts mandated in Matter of Bellacosa v Classification Review Bd. (72 NY2d 383), and thus there is no basis for their argument that it would be futile for them to seek reclassification through administrative channels. Concur — Carro, J. P., Kupferman, Asch and Smith, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

— Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. Greenfield, J.), entered April 12, 1991, which granted respondents’ cross motion to dismiss the petition, without prejudice to the institution of a new proceeding upon petitioners exhausting their administrative remedies, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioners, Secretaries to Judges (JG-14) employed in the Nassau County District Court, were not directly affected by the Chief Administrative Judge’s reclassification of secretaries in the Family, County and Surrogate’s Courts mandated in Matter of Bellacosa v Classification Review Bd. (72 NY2d 383), and thus there is no basis for their argument that it would be futile for them to seek reclassification through administrative channels. Concur — Carro, J. P., Kupferman, Asch and Smith, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

183 A.D.2d 428, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coddington-v-crosson-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack