Lucas v. Dinkins

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lucas v. Dinkins

200 A.D.2d 437, 608 N.Y.S.2d 403

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

DecidedJanuary 13, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 200 A.D.2d 437 (Lucas v. Dinkins) 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

Lucas v. Dinkins, 200 A.D.2d 437, 608 N.Y.S.2d 403 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland De-Grasse, J.), entered October 18, 1991, which granted defendants’ motions to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint on the ground inter alia, that plaintiffs’ claims are not justiciable, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs, four homeless individuals and the Legal Action Center for the Homeless, claim that their rights have been violated by defendants’ failure to provide ready and regular access to clean and safe public toilet facilities. We agree with the IAS Court that the claim raises issues concerning the allocation of public resources that are not justiciable. As we recently stated, "[w]hen there is no constitutional, statutory or regulatory basis for a claimed right, a court will not impose 'its own policy determination upon its governmental partners’ ” (Palmieri v Cuomo, 170 AD2d 283 [quoting Klostermann v Cuomo, 61 NY2d 525, 535], lv denied 78 NY2d 852). Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenberger and Wallach, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland De-Grasse, J.), entered October 18, 1991, which granted defendants’ motions to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint on the ground inter alia, that plaintiffs’ claims are not justiciable, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs, four homeless individuals and the Legal Action Center for the Homeless, claim that their rights have been violated by defendants’ failure to provide ready and regular access to clean and safe public toilet facilities. We agree with the IAS Court that the claim raises issues concerning the allocation of public resources that are not justiciable. As we recently stated, "[w]hen there is no constitutional, statutory or regulatory basis for a claimed right, a court will not impose 'its own policy determination upon its governmental partners’ ” (Palmieri v Cuomo, 170 AD2d 283 [quoting Klostermann v Cuomo, 61 NY2d 525, 535], lv denied 78 NY2d 852). Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenberger and Wallach, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

200 A.D.2d 437, 608 N.Y.S.2d 403, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lucas-v-dinkins-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack