Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: Application of David G. SAMUELS, Petitioner-Appellant, For a Judgment, etc., v. Dennis C. VACCO, as Attorney-General of the State of New York, Respondent-Respondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis York, J.), entered January 24, 1997, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 challenging respondent Attorney General's refusal to certify, pursuant to Public Officers Law § 17(2)(b), that petitioner is entitled to be represented by private counsel of his choice in a Federal action brought against him and others under 42 U.S.C. 1983, granted respondent's motion to dismiss the petition for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Order, same court and Justice, entered April 29, 1997, which denied petitioner's motion to renew, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Since the complaint in the section 1983 action against petitioner does not allege that petitioner was not executing respondent's policy or otherwise acting outside the scope of his public employment, there was never any possibility that petitioner would be held liable for unreimbursable damages, either compensatory or punitive (cf., Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165-167, 105 S.Ct. 3099, 3104-3106, 87 L.Ed.2d 114). Nor do petitioner's allegations concerning respondent's tactics and conduct in either the section 1983 action or the prosecution underlying it, viewed in light of the documentary evidence and conceded facts, show that respondent was asserting a position that exposed petitioner to an unreimbursable liability, contemplating such a position, or otherwise putting himself in conflict with petitioner. The motion to renew was properly denied since all of the facts presented in support thereof were known to petitioner at the time of the original motion, and should have presented in opposition thereto.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: June 02, 1998
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)