Matter of Clemente v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Clemente v. City of New York

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

DecidedMay 5, 2026

DocketIndex No. 819542/24|Appeal No. 6516|Case No. 2025-04344|

StatusPublished

This text of Matter of Clemente v. City of New York (Matter of Clemente v. City of New York) 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

Matter of Clemente v. City of New York, (N.Y. Ct. App. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

Matter of Clemente v City of New York - 2026 NY Slip Op 02774

skip to main content

It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.

Law Reporting
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter

Matter of Clemente v City of New York

2026 NY Slip Op 02774

May 5, 2026

Appellate Division, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

In the Matter of Joshua Clemente, Petitioner-Appellant,

v

City of New York, et al., Respondents-Respondents.

Decided and Entered: May 05, 2026

Index No. 819542/24|Appeal No. 6516|Case No. 2025-04344|

Before: Webber, J.P., Moulton, Mendez, Higgitt, Michael, JJ.

Kreisberg Maitland Mendelberg & O'Hearn LLP, New York (Chelsea C. Hill of counsel), for appellant.

Steven Banks, Corporation Counsel, New York (Jonathan A. Popolow of counsel), for respondents.

[*1]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Elizabeth A. Taylor, J.), entered on or about July 1, 2025, which granted the petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to vacate or annul the determination of respondent Office of the District Attorney, Bronx County, dated October 17, 2024, discharging petitioner from his employment, to the extent of directing a hearing pursuant to Civil Service Law § 75(1)(c), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly denied that portion of the petition seeking a judgment that petitioner be immediately awarded "full back pay." While petitioner may ultimately be entitled to backpay starting 30 days after his suspension, the extent of such backpay, if any, and the application of any offsets to any amount awarded such as from other employment or from unemployment benefits, is a matter that should be addressed in the first instance at the hearing 0rdered by the court (see Civil Service Law § 75 [3]; Matter of Johnson v Board of Trustees of Middle Is. Pub. Lib., 61 NY2d 1014, 1016 [1984]).

We have considered petitioner's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: May 5, 2026

Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.

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

Matter of Clemente v City of New York - 2026 NY Slip Op 02774

skip to main content

It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.

Law Reporting
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter

Matter of Clemente v City of New York

2026 NY Slip Op 02774

May 5, 2026

Appellate Division, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

In the Matter of Joshua Clemente, Petitioner-Appellant,

v

City of New York, et al., Respondents-Respondents.

Decided and Entered: May 05, 2026

Index No. 819542/24|Appeal No. 6516|Case No. 2025-04344|

Before: Webber, J.P., Moulton, Mendez, Higgitt, Michael, JJ.

Kreisberg Maitland Mendelberg & O'Hearn LLP, New York (Chelsea C. Hill of counsel), for appellant.

Steven Banks, Corporation Counsel, New York (Jonathan A. Popolow of counsel), for respondents.

[*1]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Elizabeth A. Taylor, J.), entered on or about July 1, 2025, which granted the petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to vacate or annul the determination of respondent Office of the District Attorney, Bronx County, dated October 17, 2024, discharging petitioner from his employment, to the extent of directing a hearing pursuant to Civil Service Law § 75(1)(c), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly denied that portion of the petition seeking a judgment that petitioner be immediately awarded "full back pay." While petitioner may ultimately be entitled to backpay starting 30 days after his suspension, the extent of such backpay, if any, and the application of any offsets to any amount awarded such as from other employment or from unemployment benefits, is a matter that should be addressed in the first instance at the hearing 0rdered by the court (see Civil Service Law § 75 [3]; Matter of Johnson v Board of Trustees of Middle Is. Pub. Lib., 61 NY2d 1014, 1016 [1984]).

We have considered petitioner's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: May 5, 2026

Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Matter of Clemente v. City of New York, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-clemente-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2026.