From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Mount Pleasant Cottage School v. Sobol

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jul 2, 1991
78 N.Y.2d 935 (N.Y. 1991)

Summary

finding that court did not abuse discretion in dismissing case for non-joinder of school principal; while respondent, as chief of executive officer of state education system had authority over petitioner, the school district, he did not have corresponding authority over school principal, a private citizen

Summary of this case from Scofero v. Zucker

Opinion

Argued June 5, 1991

Decided July 2, 1991

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department, Paul E. Cheeseman, J.

Raymond G. Kuntz and Mario L. Spagnuolo for appellant.

Charles E. O'Brien and Lizette A. Cantres for respondent.


Order affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated in the memorandum at the Appellate Division ( 163 A.D.2d 715).

Concur: Chief Judge WACHTLER and Judges SIMONS, KAYE, ALEXANDER, TITONE, HANCOCK, JR., and BELLACOSA.


Summaries of

Matter of Mount Pleasant Cottage School v. Sobol

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jul 2, 1991
78 N.Y.2d 935 (N.Y. 1991)

finding that court did not abuse discretion in dismissing case for non-joinder of school principal; while respondent, as chief of executive officer of state education system had authority over petitioner, the school district, he did not have corresponding authority over school principal, a private citizen

Summary of this case from Scofero v. Zucker
Case details for

Matter of Mount Pleasant Cottage School v. Sobol

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of MOUNT PLEASANT COTTAGE SCHOOL UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Jul 2, 1991

Citations

78 N.Y.2d 935 (N.Y. 1991)

Citing Cases

Red Hook/Gowanus Chamber of Commerce v. New York City Board of Standards

Indeed, even here, both sides have impressed on the Court the urgency of the matter, citing the costs…

Scofero v. Zucker

In particular, with regard to the MLTC plans, Plaintiffs have not established that they and the State "are .…