Matter of Thomas v. New York Temp. State Comm'n on Reg. of Lobbying, 436 N.E.2d 1310 (NY 1982). · Go Syfert
Search
Matter of Thomas v. New York Temp. State Comm'n on Reg. of Lobbying, 436 N.E.2d 1310 (NY 1982). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
37 citation events (11 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 1983 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1983 2004 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Cardo v. Murphy
N.Y. App. Div. · 1984 · signal: see · confidence high
“Although a protectible liberty interest may arise in such a situation (Board of Regents v Roth, [ 408 US 564, 573 ]), no hearing is required unless the reasons for the discharge could be said to affect petitioner’s ‘good name, reputation, honor or integrity’ (id.) and such reasons are publicly disclosed by respondents (Codd v Velger, 429 US 624, 628 ; Bishop v Wood, [ 426 US 341, 348 ])” (Matter of Carter v Murphy, 80 AD2d 960, 961 ; see Matter of Thomas v New York Temporary State Comm., 83 AD2d 723 , affd 56 NY2d 656 ).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Lentlie v. Egan
NY · 1984 · signal: see also · confidence low
(Morgan Servs. v Lavan Corp., 59 NY2d 796 .) With regard to petitioner’s claim for a name-clearing hearing, “[o]nly if the [public] employer creates and disseminates a false and defamatory impression about the employee in connection with his termination is such a hearing required.” (Codd v Velger, 429 US 624, 628 [emphasis added]; see, also, Matter of Thomas v New York Temporary State Comm, on Regulation of Lobbying, 56 NY2d 656 .) While the law of defamation requires but one communication to a single person (Ostrowe v Lee, 256 NY 36, 38 ), a discharged employee’s entitlement to a due …
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Paul E. Thomas, Appellant,
v.
New York Temporary State Commission on Regulation of Lobbying Et Al., Respondents
New York Court of Appeals.
May 4, 1982.
436 N.E.2d 1310
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Leonard Krouner and Ronald H. Sinzheimer for appellant., Robert Abrams, Attorney-General (William J. Kogan and Shirley Adelson Siegel of counsel), for respondent.
Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer Concur.
Cited by 29 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Given the nature of the attorney-client relationship and petitioner’s position as associate counsel to respondent New York State Temporary Commission on Regulation of Lobbying, it cannot be said that reports of petitioner’s active assistance to two public interest lobbying groups regulated by the commission were an improper basis for the commission’s decision to terminate petitioner’s employment (cf. Arnett v Kennedy, 416 US 134; Cooper v Johnson, 590 F2d 559). Nor was petitioner entitled to a due[*659] process hearing inasmuch as he never alleged that there was public dissemination of the reasons for his dismissal. Finally, petitioner, a nontenured employee, has demonstrated no procedural violation in the manner in which his employment was terminated.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.