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: Shelton JOHNSON, Petitioner-Appellant-Respondent, v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, et al., Respondents-Respondents-Appellants.
Judgment (denominated an order), Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered February 15, 2006, which granted the petition, brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, to the extent of annulling and vacating respondents' determination, dated February 6, 2003, that petitioner had forfeited his employment with the Department of Environmental Protection, and ordering respondent Department to pay petitioner $24,941.60 in back pay representing earnings due to lost overtime and weekend differentials, but denied the petition insofar as it sought petitioner's reinstatement to his former position at the North 15th Street Maintenance Yard in Brooklyn, New York, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Although the court improperly deemed respondents' motion to vacate and modify the prior judgment, entered February 15, 2005, a motion to resettle (see Foley v. Roche, 68 A.D.2d 558, 566, 418 N.Y.S.2d 588 [1979] ), the motion was properly granted (see Woodson v. Mendon Leasing Corp., 100 N.Y.2d 62, 68, 760 N.Y.S.2d 727, 790 N.E.2d 1156 [2003] ) to the extent of vacating the direction to place petitioner in the specific geographic location to which he was assigned before he was discharged, since there is no authority for such a requirement. Although petitioner was assigned to a different location, he was restored to the title he held before he was discharged and to the duties of that title.
The court also properly denied the motion to the extent of refusing to vacate that part of the judgment awarding petitioner back pay due to lost overtime and weekend premiums to the extent that those amounts can be documented (cf. Hancock v. City of New York, 272 A.D.2d 80, 707 N.Y.S.2d 832 [2000] [remanding for calculation of back pay excluding speculative amounts]; Lukas v. Ascher, 299 A.D.2d 262, 750 N.Y.S.2d 592 [2002] ).
Thank you for your feedback!
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: November 09, 2006
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)