Gray v. Crew

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gray v. Crew

293 A.D.2d 357, 740 N.Y.S.2d 202, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3852

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

DecidedApril 18, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 293 A.D.2d 357 (Gray v. Crew) 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

Gray v. Crew, 293 A.D.2d 357, 740 N.Y.S.2d 202, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3852 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered May 8, 2000, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs comments did not concern matters of public interest, but rather were personal attacks upon the principal of the school where he taught and other comments inappropriate to this setting, and thus did not constitute constitutionally protected speech (see, Bernheim v Litt, 79 F3d 318, 324). In any event, plaintiff was not denied any employment benefit (see, Perry v Sindermann, 408 US 593), and he failed to first exhaust his administrative remedies, as he was required to under the terms of the applicable collective bargaining agreement (see, Matter of Plummer v Klepak, 48 NY2d 486, 489).

We have reviewed plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Marlow, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered May 8, 2000, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs comments did not concern matters of public interest, but rather were personal attacks upon the principal of the school where he taught and other comments inappropriate to this setting, and thus did not constitute constitutionally protected speech (see, Bernheim v Litt, 79 F3d 318, 324). In any event, plaintiff was not denied any employment benefit (see, Perry v Sindermann, 408 US 593), and he failed to first exhaust his administrative remedies, as he was required to under the terms of the applicable collective bargaining agreement (see, Matter of Plummer v Klepak, 48 NY2d 486, 489).

We have reviewed plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

293 A.D.2d 357, 740 N.Y.S.2d 202, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3852, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gray-v-crew-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack