Dusanenko v. Maloney
| Decision Date | 27 January 1984 |
| Docket Number | D,No. 383,383 |
| Citation | 726 F.2d 82 |
| Parties | Theodore R. DUSANENKO, Nicholas A. Longo, and Robert M. Maidman, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. John R. MALONEY, Charles E. Holbrook, William J. Carey, and The Town of Clarkstown, Defendants-Appellees. ocket 83-7355. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
David MacRae Wagner, New City, N.Y., for plaintiffs-appellants.
James L. Fischer, New York City (Thomas W. Hyland, Robert F. DiUbaldo, Wilson, Elser, Edelman & Dicker, New York City, on brief), for defendants-appellees.
Before FRIENDLY, MANSFIELD and KEARSE, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiffs Theodore R. Dusanenko, Nicholas A. Longo, and Robert M. Maidman appeal from so much of a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Charles L. Brieant, Jr., Judge, as summarily dismissed their claims under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1976) and the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. Plaintiffs alleged that the individual defendants, acting in their capacity as a majority of the Town Board of defendant Town of Clarkstown, New York, had deprived plaintiffs of public position or remuneration solely for political reasons. 1 On appeal, plaintiffs contend that the court should not have granted summary judgment because there exist genuine issues of material fact to be tried. In light of plaintiffs' failure to raise any such issues in an appropriate manner, we affirm the judgment dismissing their complaint.
Dusanenko became Supervisor of the Town of Clarkstown ("Supervisor") in 1980 and was reelected to that position in November 1981. Longo, who was defeated in a November 1981 bid for reelection as a town councilman, was appointed confidential secretary to the Supervisor as of January 1, 1982. Maidman was, until December 31, 1981, a deputy town attorney for Clarkstown. Defendants John R. Maloney, Charles E. Holbrook, and William J. Carey were elected in November 1981 to three of the five positions on the town council of Clarkstown; their terms began on January 1, 1982. The complaint alleged that at a town council meeting on January 4, 1982, the individual defendants, acting purely for politically vindictive reasons, (1) reduced the salary of the Supervisor (Dusanenko) from $39,900 to $20,000; (2) reduced the salary of the Supervisor's confidential secretary (Longo) from $15,730 to $7,500; and (3) refused to reappoint Maidman as deputy town attorney.
Defendants moved for summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56, supporting their motion with an affidavit from each individual defendant. Pursuant to Rule 3(g) of the Local Rules of the Southern District of New York, 2 defendants' motion included a statement of the material facts as to which they contended there were no genuine issues to be tried. This statement included the following assertions:
19. Prior to the general election of 1981, Dusanenko had asked the council to adopt a budget which raised his salary from approximately $29,000 to $39,000, because, although Dusanenko was a mathematics teacher at the school, he was on a leave of absence, and the job of supervisor was a full-time job. The council fulfilled his request. After the election, the Clarkstown school board denied Dusanenko's request for an extended leave from his teaching position, and Dusanenko resumed teaching mathematics full-time. During 1981-82, Dusanenko also held the position of state legislator. With salaries from three jobs, including $39,000 for town supervisor, Dusanenko had an income of over $80,000 on the public payroll, which became a matter of public concern and discussion. At the reorganization meeting, the town council voted to reduce Dusanenko's salary as supervisor to $20,000.
....
21. ... Longo's appointment as confidential secretary changed the nature of the job from a secretarial to an undefined position.
....
23. In June 1973, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, publicly censured Maidman, who was then Town Justice of the Town of Clarkstown, for interfering in a criminal case against his former law partner and friend. The court decided that Maidman violated the Canons of Judicial Ethics, and that his conduct "reflected a lack of sensitivity, if not disregard, for the appearance of judicial propriety." In the Matter of Maidman, 1345 N.Y.S.2d 82, 42 A.D.2d 44 (1973) (Exhibit 5). In 1978, Maidman, still on the bench, was sued by the Securities and Exchange Commission for using his position as Vice President-Legal and General Counsel of the New York Susquehanna and Western Railroad Company to defraud the company for personal profit. This suit ended with a consent decree which enjoined Maidman from violating the securities laws. SEC v. Maidman, 78 Civ. 4971 (CSH) (S.D.N.Y., October 20, 1978) (Exhibit 6). In addition, in 1979, the five judges of the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, unanimously voted to suspend Maidman from the bench, for fixing tickets for friends, politicians and police officers. In the Matter of Maidman, 47 N.Y.2d fff (Ct. of the Judiciary 1979) (Exhibit 7).
Insofar as defendants sought dismissal of the Sec. 1983 and constitutional claims, plaintiffs presented no affidavits or other factual materials in opposition to the motion. 3 Nor, apparently, did they request an opportunity to conduct discovery in order to obtain information with which to oppose the motion.
In an opinion reported at 560 F.Supp. 822 (1983), Judge Brieant granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the Sec. 1983 and constitutional claims on the grounds (1) that the individual defendants, as local legislators, were absolutely immune from suit, and (2) that in any event, based on the uncontroverted facts adduced by defendants, plaintiffs had failed to establish a claim upon which relief may be granted. We affirm on the latter ground.
Both the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the district court place certain burdens on a party who opposes a motion for summary judgment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e) provides in pertinent part as follows:
When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether ("Mtbe")
...for Leave to File a Surreply to Defendant Hicks' Motion to Dismiss the First Amendment Complaint ¶ 4. 185. See Dusanenko v. Moloney, 726 F.2d 82, 84 (2d Cir. 1984) (citing Rule 56(e)). See also Rule 56.1 ("Failure to submit [a Rule 56.1] statement may constitute grounds for denial of the 18......
-
Orange Lake Associates, Inc. v. Kirkpatrick
...827 (S.D.N.Y.1983) (individual defendants, as local legislators, were absolutely immune from suit), aff'd on other grounds, 726 F.2d 82 (2d Cir.1984) (per curiam) and Goldberg v. Town of Rocky Hill, 973 F.2d 70, 72-73 (2d Cir.1992) ("legislators are accorded absolute immunity from suits for......
-
Eisert v. Town of Hempstead
...were adequate non political reasons for the decision to hire Parisi. In support of this position, the defendants cite Dusanenko v. Maloney, 726 F.2d 82 (2d Cir.1984). However, Dusanenko does not stand for the proposition cited. In Dusanenko, the Second Circuit merely held that where the def......
-
Ticali v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn
...in Ticali's Rule 56.1 statement which remain uncontroverted by the defendants' papers will be accepted as true. See Dusanenko v. Maloney, 726 F.2d 82, 84 (2d Cir.1984). Turning to the defendants' motion for summary judgment, the court notes that, while it could deny their motion on the grou......