Legal Opinion
Scoralick v. Milonas
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided January 12, 1995PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Mercure, J.
The individual petitioners in this proceeding, Sheriffs of Dutchess, Putnam, Rockland and Orange Counties, have traditionally provided court security services in their Counties, initially as a common-law function and subsequently pursuant to Judiciary Law § 403. Since the enactment of the Unified Court Budget Act (L 1976, ch 966), the State has reimbursed the Counties for at least a portion of the cost of these services (see, Judiciary Law § 39 [3] [b]) pursuant to standard court security service contracts. In 1993, respondents made a decision to replace locally…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Abrams v. New York City Transit AuthorityNew York Court of Appeals · 1976
- Corkum v. BartlettNew York Court of Appeals · 1979
- Durante v. EvansAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1983
- Durante v. EvansNew York Court of Appeals · 1984
- Consolation Nursing Home, Inc. v. Commissioner of New York State Department of HealthAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1993
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Lewis v. StateAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
- Drew v. Schenectady CountyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1995