Jones v. McCoy

• Decision Date: 19 November 1975
• Citation: 379 N.Y.S.2d 841,37 N.Y.2d 932
• Parties: , 342 N.E.2d 602 In the Matter of Ernest K. JONES, Appellant, v. Thomas F. McCOY, as Administrator of the Judicial Conference of the State of New York, et al., Respondents.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 841

379 N.Y.S.2d 841

37 N.Y.2d 932, 342 N.E.2d 602

In the Matter of Ernest K. JONES, Appellant, v. Thomas F. McCOY, as Administrator of the Judicial Conference of the State of New York, et al., Respondents.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Nov. 19, 1975.

Ernest K. Jones, pro se.

Michael Colodner and Michael R. Juviler, New York City, for Thomas F. McCoy, respondent.

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 N.Y.2d 978, 980, 298 N.Y.S.2d 992, 246 N.E.2d 752). 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.

JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and COOKE, JJ., concur.

BREITEL, C.J., taking no part.

Order, 44 A.D.2d 742, 354 N.Y.S.2d 462, affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.