Corning v. Village of Laurel Hollow
New York Court of Appeals
1DissentMeyer, J.
While I agree that plaintiffs are not entitled to reimbursement for the fees of their substituted attorneys or for the fees incurred in prosecuting the present action, I conclude that they are entitled to reimbursement from the village for the reasonable value of the expenses incurred by them in defending the Laverne action, for which they have not already been reimbursed by the award of costs to them in that action. The premises for that conclusion are: (1) since plaintiffs acted in their official capacity and in good faith they were entitled to be defended at the expense of the village, (2)…
2Cases cited39 opinions
- Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs.Supreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Scheuer v. RhodesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Monroe v. PapeSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
- Wood v. StricklandSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Mighty Midgets, Inc. v. Centennial InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1979
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.