Harvey S. Kornit v. Board of Education of the Plainview-Old Bethpage Central School District, New York

677 F.2d 13, 110 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2935, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 20286
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit
DecidedApril 8, 1982
Docket849, Docket 81-7840
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 677 F.2d 13 (Harvey S. Kornit v. Board of Education of the Plainview-Old Bethpage Central School District, New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Harvey S. Kornit v. Board of Education of the Plainview-Old Bethpage Central School District, New York, 677 F.2d 13, 110 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2935, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 20286 (2d Cir. 1982).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff Harvey S. Kornit appeals pro se from a memorandum and order dated October 23, 1981 by George C. Pratt, J. of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Judge Pratt’s decision dismissed appellant’s complaint, which sought injunctive relief against defendant Board of Education of the Plain-view-Old Bethpage Central School District, New York for alleged violations of Title III of the Consumer Credit Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1671-1677. Appellant, a public school teacher, challenges the deduction of two days’ wages for his participation in an illegal strike under New York State’s Taylor Law, N.Y.Civ.Serv.Law §§ 200-214 (McKinney 1973 & Supp. 1981-1982). 1 He *14 contends that this deduction constitutes an impermissible garnishment under Title III. Appellant invoked federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

We affirm for the reasons set forth in Judge Pratt’s decision, which is reported at 534 F.Supp. 94 (1981).

1

. This is not the first time that appellant has challenged the Taylor Law. He previously contested the deduction of his wages after a work stoppage in 1972 on the grounds that his right to due process had been violated because the school board members were not impartial decisionmakers and because the procedure provided by N.Y.Civ.Serv.Law § 210 amounted to a garnishment without hearing or court order in violation of Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp., 395 U.S. 337, 89 S.Ct. 1820, 23 L.Ed.2d 349 (1969). Judge Orrin G. Judd of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed the complaint on the mer *14 its in a memorandum and order dated July 22, 1975. On appeal, this court vacated the judgment with instructions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Kornit v. Board of Education, 542 F.2d 593 (2d Cir. 1976) (per curiam). The Supreme Court granted certiorari and remanded for further consideration in light of Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). 438 U.S. 902, 98 S.Ct. 3118, 57 L.Ed.2d 1144 (1978). On remand, this court by order dated October 4, 1978 affirmed Judge Judd’s decision for the reasons set forth in his July 22 memorandum and order. 591 F.2d 1330 (1978). The Supreme Court subsequently denied certiorari, 440 U.S. 936, 99 S.Ct. 1281, 59 L.Ed.2d 495 (1979), and a petition for rehearing, 441 U.S. 917, 99 S.Ct. 2020, 60 L.Ed.2d 390 (1979).

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

Related

State v. Pulasty
612 A.2d 952 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1992)
Friends of the Sakonnet v. Dutra
125 B.R. 69 (D. Rhode Island, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
677 F.2d 13, 110 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2935, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 20286, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harvey-s-kornit-v-board-of-education-of-the-plainview-old-bethpage-ca2-1982.