Hunt v. Lippman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hunt v. Lippman

267 A.D.2d 1023, 701 N.Y.S.2d 205, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13778

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

DecidedDecember 30, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 267 A.D.2d 1023 (Hunt v. Lippman) 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

Hunt v. Lippman, 267 A.D.2d 1023, 701 N.Y.S.2d 205, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13778 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

[1024]*1024declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief to eliminate the disparity between his salary and salaries paid to Family Court Judges in Erie, Monroe and Sullivan Counties pursuant to Judiciary Law § 221-e. Supreme Court erred in granting plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on the third cause of action, eliminating the disparity between plaintiffs salary and the salary paid to the Family Court Judge in Sullivan County. Plaintiff failed to meet his “heavy burden of proving that there is no reasonably conceivable state of facts which rationally supports the distinction” in salary (D’Amico v Crosson, 93 NY2d 29, 32). We note that the data regarding median home values in Jefferson and Sullivan Counties, presented for the first time in the brief of H. Carl McCall, as Comptroller of the State of New York, and the State of New York (defendants), are not properly before us (see, Affronti v Crosson, 265 AD2d 817). We reject the contention of defendants that plaintiffs claim for back pay is time-barred in part (see, Affronti v Crosson, supra). (Appeals from Judgment of Supreme Court, Jefferson County, Gilbert, J. — Declaratory Judgment.) Present— Green, J. P., Lawton, Pigott, Jr., Scudder and Callahan, JJ.

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

[1024]*1024declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief to eliminate the disparity between his salary and salaries paid to Family Court Judges in Erie, Monroe and Sullivan Counties pursuant to Judiciary Law § 221-e. Supreme Court erred in granting plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on the third cause of action, eliminating the disparity between plaintiffs salary and the salary paid to the Family Court Judge in Sullivan County. Plaintiff failed to meet his “heavy burden of proving that there is no reasonably conceivable state of facts which rationally supports the distinction” in salary (D’Amico v Crosson, 93 NY2d 29, 32). We note that the data regarding median home values in Jefferson and Sullivan Counties, presented for the first time in the brief of H. Carl McCall, as Comptroller of the State of New York, and the State of New York (defendants), are not properly before us (see, Affronti v Crosson, 265 AD2d 817). We reject the contention of defendants that plaintiffs claim for back pay is time-barred in part (see, Affronti v Crosson, supra). (Appeals from Judgment of Supreme Court, Jefferson County, Gilbert, J. — Declaratory Judgment.) Present— Green, J. P., Lawton, Pigott, Jr., Scudder and Callahan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 A.D.2d 1023, 701 N.Y.S.2d 205, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13778, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hunt-v-lippman-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack