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.
The CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Thomas A. MAUL, etc., Defendant-Appellant.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Salvador Collazo, J.), entered August 24, 1995, which, inter alia, awarded plaintiffs the City of New York and the New York City Health and Hospitals Corp. damages against defendant Thomas A. Maul, as Commissioner of the New York State Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities [“ORMDD”], and order and judgment (one paper), same court and Justice, entered January 30, 1996, increasing said award, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and said order and order and judgment (one paper) vacated insofar as they award plaintiffs monetary damages.
Since the IAS court inexplicably declined to find that defendant's failure to fully comply with a so-ordered stipulation requiring it to provide certain services to disabled residents of New York City was contemptuous within the meaning of § 753 of the Judiciary Law, defendant could not be fined under that statute. While we would hold that the record clearly mandates a finding to the contrary, plaintiffs' failure to appeal from the IAS court's ruling precludes us from doing so. The IAS court's attempt to fashion an alternative remedy for defendant's breach of the stipulation by awarding contractual damages against defendant was not within its jurisdiction, since claims for money damages against the State of New York, including claims against State agencies and State officers acting in their official capacities, must be brought in the Court of Claims (Morell v. Balasubramanian, 70 N.Y.2d 297, 300, 520 N.Y.S.2d 530, 514 N.E.2d 1101; Sinhogar v. Parry, 53 N.Y.2d 424, 431, 442 N.Y.S.2d 438, 425 N.E.2d 826).
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: May 15, 1997
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)