Amato v. Town of Carmel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Amato v. Town of Carmel

247 A.D.2d 468, 668 N.Y.S.2d 98, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1048

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

DecidedFebruary 9, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 247 A.D.2d 468 (Amato v. Town of Carmel) 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

Amato v. Town of Carmel, 247 A.D.2d 468, 668 N.Y.S.2d 98, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1048 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to compel the respondents to pay the legal fees and disbursements incurred for the [469]*469petitioner’s defense of a certain Federal action, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Braatz, J.), dated March 21, 1997, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Public Officers Law § 18 (3) (b) provides that an “employee shall be entitled to be represented by private counsel of his choice in any civil action or proceeding whenever the chief legal officer of the public entity * * * determines that a conflict of interest exists, or whenever a court * * * determines that a conflict of interest exists and that the employee is entitled to be represented by counsel of his choice.”

We agree with the Supreme Court that the facts of this case do not establish a conflict of interest within the meaning of Public Officers Law § 18 (3) (b) (see, Matter of Galligan v City of Schenectady, 116 AD2d 798).

Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, Ritter and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

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