Perez v. State
| Decision Date | 17 April 1980 |
| Citation | 75 A.D.2d 683,426 N.Y.S.2d 876 |
| Parties | Edward Paul PEREZ, Respondent, v. STATE of New York, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen. (Jeremiah Jochnowitz, Asst. Atty. Gen., of counsel), for appellant.
Arthur V. Graseck, Jr., Port Washington, for respondent.
Before MAHONEY, P. J., and SWEENEY, KANE, STALEY and MIKOLL, JJ.
Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims, entered November 28, 1978, which granted claimant's motion for leave to file a late claim.
Arrested for the criminal sale of a controlled substance on March 13, 1975, claimant was ultimately adjudicated a youthful offender by the Suffolk County District Court on July 25, 1975. He thereafter secured a probationary appointment with the Department of Mental Hygiene and served as a therapy aide trainee at the Kings Park Psychiatric Center from January 13, 1977 until he was discharged in July of 1977. It appears that the department became aware of claimant's arrest through information provided by the Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) and that his termination from employment was based, at least in part, on his refusal to supply details of that incident or to answer questions concerning his potential involvement with dangerous drugs. The record further reveals that on May 25, 1978 a decision was rendered by Supreme Court at Special Term, Suffolk County, dismissing claimant's article 78 proceeding to annul the department's determination on a finding that it had acted in good faith in effecting his discharge. Although not contained in the record, his complaint that the department engaged in an unlawful discriminatory practice also proved unsuccessful (Matter of Perez v. New York State Human Rights Appeal Bd., 71 A.D.2d 150, 422 N.Y.S.2d 767). On August 27, 1978, claimant applied for permission to file a late claim against the State pursuant to section 10 (subd. 6) of the Court of Claims Act. The proposed claim alleges that DCJS negligently released information it was obliged to maintain as confidential under CPL 720.35 when it advised the Psychiatric Center that claimant had an arrest record. The motion was granted and this appeal by the State ensued.
Over a year elapsed between claimant's dismissal and his present efforts to institute an action against the State for damages, yet no excuse has been offered for his failure to file a timely claim or notice of intention. While that deficiency alone might not be sufficient to defeat claimant's application, the State seriously disputes "whether the claim appears to be meritorious" (Court of Claims Act, § 10, subd. 6). To the extent it is predicated on a theory of wrongful discharge from employment, we conclude that it does not. Claimant is plainly bound by the outcome of the article...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Calverley v. State
... ... State of New York, 122 A.D.3d 612, 612613, 996 N.Y.S.2d 97 [2014] ). Accordingly, the Court of Claims did not abuse its discretion in granting claimant's motion to file a late notice of claim (see Perez v. State of New York, 75 A.D.2d 683, 684, 426 N.Y.S.2d 876 [1980] ). Clark, Devine and Pritzker, JJ., concur. Lynch, J.P. (concurring).I agree with the majority that the Court of Claims' order should be affirmed and that claimant has presented a potential claim that defendant knew or should have ... ...
-
New York State Dept. of Mental Hygiene v. State Div. of Human Rights
... ... 1, 2, par. Hollender v. Trump Vil. Coop., 58 N.Y.2d 420, 425, 461 N.Y.S.2d ... 765, 448 N.E.2d 432)--and we know of no manner in which accurate information as to a disposition can be promptly obtained other than from the employee himself (cf. Perez v. State of New York, 75 A.D.2d 683, 426 N.Y.S.2d 876). In fact, since Kings Park could have terminated Carey without giving any reason (see Matter of Talamo v. Murphy, 38 N.Y.2d 637, 382 N.Y.S.2d 3, 345 N.E.2d 546; Matter of Bonney v. Dilworth, 99 A.D.2d 468, 470 N.Y.S.2d 48; cf. Matter of ... ...
-
People v. Santiago
... ... The defendant testified in his own defense and, on cross-examination, the prosecutor repeatedly tried to have him state that a police witness was a liar. On summation, the prosecutor commented that if the defendant stuck to his story "he would be calling Detective ... Perez, 69 A.D.2d 891, 426 N.Y.S.2d 876; People v. Webb, 68 A.D.2d 331, 417 N.Y.S.2d 92). In addition, the prosecutor's denigration of the defense ... ...
-
Anderson-Haider v. State
... ... The Third Department itself, however, subsequently pointed to Davis when it stated that the Court had not "directly addressed" whether or not a violation of CPL 720. 35(2) "could give rise to a cause of action" ( Perez v. State of New York, 75 A.D.2d 683, 684, 426 N.Y.S.2d 876 [3d Dept.1980] ).Thus, the only case directly on point is Yanicki. This Court finds Judge Lane's reasoning and analysis in Yanicki to be persuasive and agrees with his conclusion that no private right of action exists for breach of the ... ...