a hearing, he was deprived of property without due process.
This Court need not reach the question of whether Todaro had a property interest in his job, because even if he did, he has not been deprived of that interest without due process. In order to establish a procedural due process violation, a plaintiff must prove that he was deprived of "an opportunity granted at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner for [a] hearing appropriate to the nature of the case." Brady v. Town of Colchester, 863 F.2d 205, 211 (2d Cir. 1988) (internal quotation and citation omitted).
Here, Todaro could have sought meaningful review of the decision to terminate him without a hearing within the state judicial system. Article 78 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules provides a summary proceeding which can be used to review administrative decisions. The availability of such recourse, as a matter of law, precludes the finding that defendant's conduct violated plaintiff's rights to procedural due process under the fourteenth amendment. See, e.g., Brady, 863 F.2d at 211 (citing Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 543-44, 68 L. Ed. 2d 420, 101 S. Ct. 1908 (1981)); Campo v. New York City Employees' Retirement Sys., 843 F.2d 96, 101-103 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 889, 102 L. Ed. 2d 211, 109 S. Ct. 220 (1988); Moscowitz v. Brown, 850 F. Supp. 1185, 1196 (S.D.N.Y. 1994).
In conclusion, defendant Norat's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is granted. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case.
Dated: White Plains, N.Y.
April 1, 1996
Barrington D. Parker, Jr.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.