From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mansour v. Abrams

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jul 14, 1992
185 A.D.2d 670 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

July 14, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Monroe County, Boehm, J.

Present — Denman, P.J., Pine, Balio, Lawton and Doerr, JJ.


Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: We reject plaintiffs' contention that a cause of action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 may be maintained against defendant Robert Abrams on the ground that Abrams improperly delegated authority to defendant Ronald Goldstock (see, Al-Jundi v. Estate of Rockefeller, 885 F.2d 1060, 1065-1067). It is undisputed that Abrams had no personal involvement in the termination of plaintiff John Mansour's employment. In the absence of such involvement, plaintiffs have no cause of action against Abrams under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (see, Giacalone v. Abrams, 850 F.2d 79, 86, n 1; see also, Al-Jundi v. Estate of Rockefeller, supra, at 1065-1067; see generally, Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 385; Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694-695).


Summaries of

Mansour v. Abrams

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jul 14, 1992
185 A.D.2d 670 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

Mansour v. Abrams

Case Details

Full title:JOHN MANSOUR et al., Appellants, v. ROBERT ABRAMS, as Attorney-General of…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Jul 14, 1992

Citations

185 A.D.2d 670 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Citing Cases

Tacheau v. Mastrantonio

1. Granger Based on the principle that personal involvement of a defendant is a prerequisite to liability…

Shelton v. New York State Liquor Authority

re `bald assertions and conclusions of law' do not suffice" ( Davis v County of Nassau, 355 F Supp 2d 668,…