MATTER OF TOMLINSON v. Ward
MATTER OF TOMLINSON v. Ward
66 N.Y.2d 771; 488 N.E.2d 114; 497 N.Y.S.2d 368; 1985 N.Y. LEXIS 17913
Cases that cite this one
16 later published cases cite this decision.
- Garcia v. Bratton (N.Y. 1997)
- Matter of Christian v. Department of Educ. of the City of N.Y. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2026)
- Matter of Christian v. Department of Educ. of the City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
- Matter of Trager v. Suffolk County (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
- Matter of Brickhouse v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
- Matter of Brickhouse v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
- Matter of Marshall v. Simon (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- Smith v. New York City Department of Correction (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
- Garcia v. Bratton (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
- Dolcemaschio v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
- Young Ju Park-Cunningham v. City of Watertown (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
- Rivoli v. Stern (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
- Cacamese v. Del Castillo (New York Supreme Court 1988)
- Reis v. New York State Housing Finance Agency (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
- Sepulveda v. Long Island State Park & Recreation Commission (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1986)
- Bonacci v. Quinones (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1986)
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
OPINION OF THE COURT
Order affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated in the memorandum at the Appellate Division (110 AD2d 537). We add only that the extension of the probationary period, under the circumstances of this case, is not a penalty as contemplated by Judiciary Law § 519.
Concur: Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Jasen, Meyer, Kaye, Alexander and Titone. Taking no part: Judge Simons.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.