1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. N.Y.2d
  4. 35 N.Y.2d
  5. 35 N.Y.2d 547 (1974)
 

MATTER OF SANFORD v. ROCKEFELLER

35 N.Y.2d 547 (1974)

In the Matter of Thomas J. Sanford, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Appellant, v. Nelson A. Rockefeller, as Governor of the State of New York, et al., Respondents. In the Matter of Shirley L. Splatt, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Appellant, v. Nelson A. Rockefeller, as Governor of the State of New York, et al., Respondents. In the Matter of James Winkowski, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Appellant, v. Nelson A. Rockefeller, as Governor of the State of New York, et al., Respondents. In the Matter of Mack Godbee, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Appellant, v. Nelson A. Rockefeller, as Governor of the State of New York, et al., Respondents. In the Matter of Richard Collins, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Appellant, v. Nelson A. Rockefeller, as Governor of the State of New York, et al., Respondents.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York.

Decided December 19, 1974.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Richard R. Rowley and Jeffrey G. Plant for Richard Collins and another, appellants.

John T. DeGraff, William H. Allen, John C. Rice and Samuel Jacobs for Thomas J. Sanford and remaining appellants, appellants.

Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney-General (John Q. Driscoll and Ruth Kessler Toch of counsel), for respondents.

Phillips, Nizaer, Benjamin, Krim & Ballon for Patrolmen's Benevolent Association of the City of New York, Inc., amicus curiae.

Chief Judge BREITEL and Judges JASEN, JONES, RABIN and STEVENS concur with Judge GABRIELLI; Judge WACHTLER dissents and votes to modify in a separate opinion.

GABRIELLI, J.

These cases are again before us as a result of the United States Supreme Court's vacatur of our prior decision, accompanied by the direction to reconsider the issues in light of Arnett v. Kennedy (416 U.S. 134). The issues, to be more narrowly defined hereinafter, concern the adequacy of the procedural safeguards contained in section 210 of the Civil Service...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases