Smithson v. Ilion Housing Authority

New York Court of Appeals

Smithson v. Ilion Housing Authority

531 N.E.2d 651, 72 N.Y.2d 1034, 534 N.Y.S.2d 930, 1988 N.Y. LEXIS 2707

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 27, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 531 N.E.2d 651 (Smithson v. Ilion Housing Authority) 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

Smithson v. Ilion Housing Authority, 531 N.E.2d 651, 72 N.Y.2d 1034, 534 N.Y.S.2d 930, 1988 N.Y. LEXIS 2707 (N.Y. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

The Appellate Division correctly determined that petitioner —an employee terminable at will — failed to show that his employment was terminated for a constitutionally impermissible reason (see, Murphy v American Home Prods. Corp., 58 NY2d 293, 305). Nor did the Appellate Division abuse its discretion in concluding that violation of the Open Meetings Law, in the circumstances presented, did not require the annulment of the Board’s determination dismissing petitioner from his employment (Public Officers Law § 106 [2]; § 107; see, Matter of Sanna v Lindenhurst Bd. of Educ., 58 NY2d 626).

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

The Appellate Division correctly determined that petitioner —an employee terminable at will — failed to show that his employment was terminated for a constitutionally impermissible reason (see, Murphy v American Home Prods. Corp., 58 NY2d 293, 305). Nor did the Appellate Division abuse its discretion in concluding that violation of the Open Meetings Law, in the circumstances presented, did not require the annulment of the Board’s determination dismissing petitioner from his employment (Public Officers Law § 106 [2]; § 107; see, Matter of Sanna v Lindenhurst Bd. of Educ., 58 NY2d 626).

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

531 N.E.2d 651, 72 N.Y.2d 1034, 534 N.Y.S.2d 930, 1988 N.Y. LEXIS 2707, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smithson-v-ilion-housing-authority-ny-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack