Apuzzo v. County of Ulster

New York Court of Appeals

Apuzzo v. County of Ulster

468 N.E.2d 29, 62 N.Y.2d 960, 479 N.Y.S.2d 191, 1984 N.Y. LEXIS 4471

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 29, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by22 cases

This text of 468 N.E.2d 29 (Apuzzo v. County of Ulster) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Apuzzo v. County of Ulster, 468 N.E.2d 29, 62 N.Y.2d 960, 479 N.Y.S.2d 191, 1984 N.Y. LEXIS 4471 (N.Y. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs to respondents against both appellants, for the reasons stated in its memorandum (98 AD2d 869). We add that, whether or not petitioner has standing to bring the instant proceeding in light of the provisions of article IV of the collective bargaining agreement (Chupka v Lorenz-Schneider Co., 12 NY2d 1; Matter of Soto [Goldman], 7 NY2d 397), the issues raised are properly before us on the county’s appeal, it having cross-petitioned for the same relief. We note further, however, that the claim of laches is not, that question being for the arbitrator (cf. CPLR 7502, subd [b]), and that revocation of the Apuzzo appointment is not barred by section 75 of the Civil Service Law, the failure to follow the seniority preference provision of section 2 of article XIV of the agreement being an irregularity of a substantial nature in the appointment, within the meaning of the last unnumbered paragraph of subdivision 4 of section 50 of the Civil Service Law (see, also, Civil Service Law, § 52, subd 2).

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wacht-ler, Meyer, Simons and Kaye concur.

Order affirmed, with costs to respondents against appellant, in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs to respondents against both appellants, for the reasons stated in its memorandum (98 AD2d 869). We add that, whether or not petitioner has standing to bring the instant proceeding in light of the provisions of article IV of the collective bargaining agreement (Chupka v Lorenz-Schneider Co., 12 NY2d 1; Matter of Soto [Goldman], 7 NY2d 397), the issues raised are properly before us on the county’s appeal, it having cross-petitioned for the same relief. We note further, however, that the claim of laches is not, that question being for the arbitrator (cf. CPLR 7502, subd [b]), and that revocation of the Apuzzo appointment is not barred by section 75 of the Civil Service Law, the failure to follow the seniority preference provision of section 2 of article XIV of the agreement being an irregularity of a substantial nature in the appointment, within the meaning of the last unnumbered paragraph of subdivision 4 of section 50 of the Civil Service Law (see, also, Civil Service Law, § 52, subd 2).

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wacht-ler, Meyer, Simons and Kaye concur.

Order affirmed, with costs to respondents against appellant, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

468 N.E.2d 29, 62 N.Y.2d 960, 479 N.Y.S.2d 191, 1984 N.Y. LEXIS 4471, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/apuzzo-v-county-of-ulster-ny-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack