Johnson v. Smith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Johnson v. Smith

112 A.D.2d 50, 490 N.Y.S.2d 414, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50704

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

DecidedJune 4, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 112 A.D.2d 50 (Johnson v. Smith) 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

Johnson v. Smith, 112 A.D.2d 50, 490 N.Y.S.2d 414, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50704 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously reversed, on the law, and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Special Term was in error [51]*51in requiring the State to credit the inmate’s account with that amount of pay he did not receive as a result of a disposition at a superintendent’s proceeding which was later reversed for procedural defects. Petitioner had no statutory guarantee that he would keep his job in the institutional mess hall (see, Matter of Cooper v Smith, 99 AD2d 644, affd 63 NY2d 615; Matter of Duval v Smith, 50 AD2d 1066; see also, Matter of Allah v Smith, 112 AD2d 50). We add only that in seeking back pay petitioner would have to resort to an action in the Court of Claims to recover money from the State (County of Onondaga v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 97 AD2d 957, affd 62 NY2d 826; Siegel, NY Prac § 570, at 801). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, La Mendola, J. — art 78.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Hancock, Jr., Denman, Green and Pine, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously reversed, on the law, and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Special Term was in error [51]*51in requiring the State to credit the inmate’s account with that amount of pay he did not receive as a result of a disposition at a superintendent’s proceeding which was later reversed for procedural defects. Petitioner had no statutory guarantee that he would keep his job in the institutional mess hall (see, Matter of Cooper v Smith, 99 AD2d 644, affd 63 NY2d 615; Matter of Duval v Smith, 50 AD2d 1066; see also, Matter of Allah v Smith, 112 AD2d 50). We add only that in seeking back pay petitioner would have to resort to an action in the Court of Claims to recover money from the State (County of Onondaga v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 97 AD2d 957, affd 62 NY2d 826; Siegel, NY Prac § 570, at 801). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, La Mendola, J. — art 78.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Hancock, Jr., Denman, Green and Pine, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 A.D.2d 50, 490 N.Y.S.2d 414, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50704, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-smith-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack