New York Court of Appeals, 1983

Lutwin v. Alleyne

New York Court of Appeals · Decided February 15, 1983

58 N.Y.2d 889; 447 N.E.2d 46; 460 N.Y.S.2d 498; 1983 N.Y. LEXIS 2869

Cases that cite this one

5 later published cases cite this decision.

Tyk v. Brooklyn Community Bd. 12 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
Matrisciano v. Board of Education of City School District (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
Ragone v. Board of Education (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1993)
O'Dea v. School District of the Niagara Falls (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1986)
Power Authority v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (N.Y. 1983)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The judgment appealed from and the order of the Appellate Division brought up for review should be modified, with costs to appellants, by deleting the provision which adjudged that there is no basis for the charge that petitioner failed to co-operate with the evaluation committee’s request for a meeting and service complaint log and that the charge of insubordination against the petitioner was unfounded, and, as so modified, affirmed.

Although the subject hearing has been held, and the issue of petitioner’s entitlement to such hearing has therefore become moot, we retain jurisdiction of the appeal because the question is likely to affect a large number of cases on a continuing basis (People v Fuller, 57 NY2d 152, 156, n 2; Matter of Oliver v Posted, 30 NY2d 171, 177-178; cf. Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-718).

On the merits, review of the record establishes that, as a matter of law, the charges disseminated to the public did not in any way implicate petitioner’s good name, reputation, honor or integrity. Therefore, the Appellate Division erred in granting petitioner a name-clearing hearing (Board of Regents v Roth, 408 US 564, 573).

*892Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg, Meyer and Simons concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [g]), judgment appealed from and order of the Appellate Division brought up for review modified, with costs to appellants-respondents, in accordance with the memorandum herein and, as so modified, affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.