Kaufman v. McCall, 70 N.Y.2d 704 (1987)

In a CPLR Article 78 proceeding, an award for lost salary can be considered incidental to the primary relief sought, such as reinstatement, depending on the specific facts of the case.

Summary

This case clarifies the scope of incidental damages available in Article 78 proceedings under New York law. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order, emphasizing that lost salary could have been awarded as incidental damages in a prior Article 78 proceeding if the plaintiff had prevailed in obtaining reinstatement. The court distinguished this case from situations where the primary relief of reinstatement is no longer available. The determination of whether damages are “incidental to the primary relief sought” is fact-dependent.

Facts

The plaintiff, Kaufman, was terminated from his employment at Queens College. He initiated an Article 78 proceeding seeking rescission of the termination letter and a declaration that he was a tenured faculty member.

Procedural History

The Appellate Division’s order was appealed to the New York Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision.

Issue(s)

Whether lost salary can be awarded as damages incidental to the primary relief sought in a CPLR Article 78 proceeding.

Holding

Yes, because under CPLR 7806, lost salary can be “incidental to the primary relief sought by petitioner” if the primary relief, such as rescission of a termination letter and reinstatement, is granted.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals reasoned that had Kaufman prevailed in the prior Article 78 proceeding, he could have been awarded lost salary calculated from the date of termination to the date of reinstatement. The court relied on CPLR 7806, which allows for damages that are “incidental to the primary relief sought.” The court distinguished this situation from cases like Matter of Schwab v Bowen, 41 NY2d 907, 908, where damages could not be awarded because the primary relief of reinstatement was no longer available. The court stated, “Whether damages are ‘incidental to the primary relief sought’ depends upon the facts of the case.” The court also distinguished Davidson V Capuano, 792 F2d 275 noting that compensatory and punitive damages and attorney’s fees plaintiff is seeking under 42 USC § 3988 cannot be deemed incidental to relief plaintiff was satisfied in prior article 78 proceeding. The key factor is the availability and nature of the primary relief sought in the Article 78 proceeding.