From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Jones v. McCoy

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Nov 19, 1975
342 N.E.2d 602 (N.Y. 1975)

Opinion

Argued October 20, 1975

Decided November 19, 1975

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department, SIDNEY A. FINE, J.

Ernest K. Jones, appellant pro se. Michael Colodner and Michael R. Juviler 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). Since petitioner had not exhausted his available remedy under 22 N.Y.CRR 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.

Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and COOKE concur; Chief Judge BREITEL taking no part.

Order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.


Summaries of

Matter of Jones v. McCoy

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Nov 19, 1975
342 N.E.2d 602 (N.Y. 1975)
Case details for

Matter of Jones v. McCoy

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of ERNEST K. JONES, Appellant, v. THOMAS F. McCOY, as…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Nov 19, 1975

Citations

342 N.E.2d 602 (N.Y. 1975)
342 N.E.2d 602
379 N.Y.S.2d 841

Citing Cases

Pavone v. Barclay

We now reverse. It is settled in New York that an incumbent may retain his position without the necessity of…

Matter of Turner v. Reed

By the express provisions of Special Term's order, therefore, the order has terminated. In their answer to…