Allen v. Angello

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Allen v. Angello

271 A.D.2d 741, 706 N.Y.S.2d 367, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3899

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 6, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 271 A.D.2d 741 (Allen v. Angello) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Allen v. Angello, 271 A.D.2d 741, 706 N.Y.S.2d 367, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3899 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Cardona, P. J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Canfield, J.), entered April 6, 1999 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioners’ application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent Director of Employee Relations denying petitioner Michael Allen’s out-of-title grievance.

In this CPLR article 78 proceeding, petitioner Michael Allen challenges the denial of his out-of-title grievance alleging that, while employed by the Department of Environmental Conservation as a Fish & Wildlife Technician II, he was required to perform the duties of a Fish & Wildlife Technician III. Inasmuch as his claims are similar to those raised by the petitioner in Matter of Curtiss v Angello (269 AD2d 675) and not accepted by this court, we affirm Supreme Court’s judgment dismissing the petition.

Crew III, Carpinello, Graffeo and Mugglin, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cardona, P. J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Canfield, J.), entered April 6, 1999 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioners’ application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent Director of Employee Relations denying petitioner Michael Allen’s out-of-title grievance.

In this CPLR article 78 proceeding, petitioner Michael Allen challenges the denial of his out-of-title grievance alleging that, while employed by the Department of Environmental Conservation as a Fish & Wildlife Technician II, he was required to perform the duties of a Fish & Wildlife Technician III. Inasmuch as his claims are similar to those raised by the petitioner in Matter of Curtiss v Angello (269 AD2d 675) and not accepted by this court, we affirm Supreme Court’s judgment dismissing the petition.

Crew III, Carpinello, Graffeo and Mugglin, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 A.D.2d 741, 706 N.Y.S.2d 367, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3899, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/allen-v-angello-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack