Williams v. City of New York

N.Y.

Court: New York Court of Appeals

Citations: 64 N.Y.2d 800, 486 N.Y.S.2d 918, 476 N.E.2d 317, 1985 N.Y. LEXIS 17598

Decision Date: 2/5/1985

Jurisdiction: NY

Bluebook Citation: Williams v. City of New York, 64 N.Y.2d 800, 486 N.Y.S.2d 918, 476 N.E.2d 317, 1985 N.Y. LEXIS 17598 (1985)

More Cases: N.Y. decisions from 1985

Citation analytics

How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.

★Highly CitedTop 4% most-cited · cited by 75 decisions

Citing decisions

Authorities cited

Courts citing

Citations by decade

1980s1990s2000s2010s2020s

Courts citing this case

N.Y. App. Div.28

S.D.N.Y.28

N.Y. Sup. Ct.4

2d Cir.3

E.D.N.Y3

Most recently cited by10

2026Wrenn v. City of New York
2026Laino v. City of New York
2026Matter of Soudani v. County of Orange N.Y. App. Div.
2026Kelly v. City of New York N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty.
2025Matter of Barnhart v. County of Monroe N.Y. App. Div.
2025Shuford v. New York City Department Of Corrections E.D.N.Y
2025Sanderson-Burgess v. City of New York N.Y. App. Div.
2025Samu v. City of New York S.D.N.Y.
2024Hop Wah v. Crosby S.D.N.Y.
2024Butler v. City of New York S.D.N.Y.

Cites 1 case

Riviello v. Waldron

Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.

Opinion

In the Matter of Howard Williams, Appellant, v City of New York et al., Respondents.

Attorneys

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Bruce R. Bekritsky for appellant.
Frederick A. O. Schwarz, Jr., Corporation Counsel (Stephen J. McGrath and Leonard Koerner of counsel), for respondents.

majority

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

While off duty on July 25, 1980, petitioner, a New York City Correction Officer, was approached by two men who allegedly pointed a sawed-off shotgun at him and his female companion. In response, he drew and fired his revolver, wounding Paul Kinard, one of the assailants. Petitioner subsequently arrested Kinard and charged him with menacing and criminal possession of a weapon. The jury acquitted Kinard of these charges and he then commenced a civil action in Federal District Court seeking recovery of damages for the shooting incident against petitioner, the Correction Department and the city. Petitioner requested that the Corporation Counsel represent him in the Federal action, but he refused based on his determination that petitioner was not acting within the scope of his employment as a correction officer at the time and place of the incident.

Petitioner then commenced the instant article 78 proceeding seeking a judgment directing the city to furnish him with counsel in the Federal action or, alternatively, to pay his legal expenses. Special Term dismissed the petition, holding that the determination of the Corporation Counsel denying the requested counsel was not arbitrary or capricious and the Appellate Division affirmed.

The issue of whether petitioner’s acts were committed within the scope of his public employment and the discharge ¡of his duties raises factual questions (see, Riviello v Waldron, 47 NY2d 297, 303). Whether he was so acting and thus was entitled to representation by the Corporation Counsel and indemnification by the city are to be determined in the first instance by the Corporation Counsel (see, General Municipal Law § 50-k [2]) and his determination may be set aside only if it lacks a factual basis, and in that sense, is arbitrary and capricious. The Corporation Counsel’s determination here that petitioner was not acting within the scope of his employment and in the discharge of his duties cannot be characterized as unreasonable in light of Kinard’s acquittal of the criminal charges.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Jasen, Meyer, Simons and Kaye concur; Judge Alexander taking no part.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.