MATTER OF JONES v. McCoy

New York Court of Appeals

MATTER OF JONES v. McCoy

342 N.E.2d 602, 37 N.Y.2d 932, 379 N.Y.S.2d 841, 1975 N.Y. LEXIS 2294

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 19, 1975

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 342 N.E.2d 602 (MATTER OF JONES v. McCoy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

MATTER OF JONES v. McCoy, 342 N.E.2d 602, 37 N.Y.2d 932, 379 N.Y.S.2d 841, 1975 N.Y. LEXIS 2294 (N.Y. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum. Before an employee of the unified court system may seek judicial relief, he must exhaust whatever administrative remedies have been made available to him (Matter of Kalichstein v McCoy, 23 NY2d 978, 980). Since petitioner had not exhausted his available remedy under 22 NYCRR 25.5, the court below properly dismissed this article 78 proceeding in the nature of mandamus. Moreover, the extraordinary remedy is available only when there is a clear legal right and is still subject to the exercise of discretion by the courts below, which this court might or might not have the power to review.

*934 Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur; Chief Judge Breitel taking no part.

Order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.

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

Memorandum. Before an employee of the unified court system may seek judicial relief, he must exhaust whatever administrative remedies have been made available to him (Matter of Kalichstein v McCoy, 23 NY2d 978, 980). Since petitioner had not exhausted his available remedy under 22 NYCRR 25.5, the court below properly dismissed this article 78 proceeding in the nature of mandamus. Moreover, the extraordinary remedy is available only when there is a clear legal right and is still subject to the exercise of discretion by the courts below, which this court might or might not have the power to review.

*934 Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur; Chief Judge Breitel taking no part.

Order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

342 N.E.2d 602, 37 N.Y.2d 932, 379 N.Y.S.2d 841, 1975 N.Y. LEXIS 2294, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-jones-v-mccoy-ny-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack