From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Thomas v. New York Temporary St. Comm

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
May 4, 1982
56 N.Y.2d 656 (N.Y. 1982)

Opinion

Argued March 23, 1982

Decided May 4, 1982

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department, LEONARD A. WEISS, J.

Leonard Krouner and Ronald H. Sinzheimer for appellant.

Robert Abrams, Attorney-General ( William J. Kogan and Shirley Adelson Siegel of counsel), for respondent.


MEMORANDUM.

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

Given the nature of the attorney-client relationship and petitioner's position as associate counsel to respondent New York State Temporary Commission on Regulation of Lobbying, it cannot be said that reports of petitioner's active assistance to two public interest lobbying groups regulated by the commission were an improper basis for the commission's decision to terminate petitioner's employment (cf. Arnett v Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134; Cooper v Johnson, 590 F.2d 559). Nor was petitioner entitled to a due process hearing inasmuch as he never alleged that there was public dissemination of the reasons for his dismissal. Finally, petitioner, a nontenured employee, has demonstrated no procedural violation in the manner in which his employment was terminated.

Chief Judge COOKE and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and MEYER concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.


Summaries of

Matter of Thomas v. New York Temporary St. Comm

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
May 4, 1982
56 N.Y.2d 656 (N.Y. 1982)
Case details for

Matter of Thomas v. New York Temporary St. Comm

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of PAUL E. THOMAS, Appellant, v. NEW YORK TEMPORARY STATE…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: May 4, 1982

Citations

56 N.Y.2d 656 (N.Y. 1982)
451 N.Y.S.2d 708
436 N.E.2d 1310

Citing Cases

Lowery v. Dep't of Corrections

Other courts have either directly or indirectly relied on cases predating Monell, supra, and/or on Monroe v.…

Hampton v. State of Michigan

However, the majority of other states which have addressed the question have reached the opposite conclusion.…