Burke v. Crosson
New York Court of Appeals
85 N.Y.2d 10, 623 N.Y.S.2d 524, 647 N.E.2d 736 (1995)
- Written by Steven Pacht, JD
Facts
William Burke and certain other county-court judges (collectively, judges) (defendants) sued Matthew Crosson, the chief administrator of the New York courts and others (collectively, state) (defendants). The judges asserted 17 claims relating to the fact that the state paid them less than it paid certain other county-court judges. The supreme court granted summary judgment against 16 of the judges’ claims, but it granted summary judgment to the judges on their equal-protection claim. Before a planned hearing on damages and attorney’s fees, the judges appealed the dismissal of their 16 claims. The state did not cross-appeal. While the judges’ appeal was pending, the supreme court awarded damages and attorney’s fees to the judges. The state appealed the damages and fees awards. In that appeal, the state also sought review of the supreme court’s ruling that the state was liable. The judges responded that the state should have appealed the liability ruling against it when the judges appealed their loss on the 16 other claims. The appellate division ruled that the state’s liability appeal was untimely. After further proceedings in the supreme court and the appellate division regarding attorney’s fees, the state further appealed the denial of its liability appeal.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Titone, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 830,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
