Summary
finding claim for lost salary incidental to claim for loss of employment and therefore recoverable in Article 78 proceeding
Summary of this case from Burka v. New York City Transit AuthorityOpinion
Decided July 3, 1986
Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, Eve Preminger, J.
Jonathan A. Weiss for appellant.
Frederick A.O. Schwarz, Jr., Corporation Counsel (Edward F.X. Hart of counsel), for respondent.
MEMORANDUM.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated by that court ( 111 A.D.2d 17). We add only that, had he prevailed on appeal in the prior article 78 proceeding, plaintiff could have been awarded the loss of salary he is currently seeking, calculated from the date he was no longer employed at Queens College to the date of reinstatement. Under CPLR 7806, the lost salary would have been "incidental to the primary relief sought by petitioner", i.e., rescission of the letter terminating his employment and an order declaring him to be a tenured member of the Queens College faculty (cf. Matter of Schwab v Bowen, 41 N.Y.2d 907, 908 [damages could not be awarded because primary relief of reinstatement was no longer available to which damages would have been incidental]; but cf. also, Davidson v Capuano, 792 F.2d 275 [compensatory and punitive damages and attorney's fees plaintiff is seeking under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 cannot be deemed incidental to relief plaintiff was awarded in prior article 78 proceeding]). Whether damages are "incidental to the primary relief sought" depends upon the facts of the case (see, Matter of Schwab, supra).
Chief Judge WACHTLER and Judges MEYER, SIMONS, KAYE, ALEXANDER and HANCOCK, JR., concur; Judge TITONE taking no part.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 N.Y.CRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.