Berry v. Culross

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Berry v. Culross

90 A.D.2d 809, 455 N.Y.S.2d 743, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19041

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

DecidedNovember 15, 1982

StatusPublished

This text of 90 A.D.2d 809 (Berry v. Culross) 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

Berry v. Culross, 90 A.D.2d 809, 455 N.Y.S.2d 743, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19041 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review respondents’ determination denying petitioner’s application for compensatory time for overtime accrued while he was assigned [810]*810to the detective division of the Police Department, City of Rye, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Dickinson, J.), dated July 16, 1981, which dismissed the proceeding. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The grievance filed by petitioner on August 29, 1980 sought essentially the same relief as that which respondents had denied on November 14, 1979. Insofar as petitioner’s second application was “analytically identical” to his prior unsuccessful application, it is being treated as a request for reconsideration (Matter of Qualey v Shang, 70 AD2d 619, 621). Such second application does not extend the four-month statutory period within which to seek review of an administrative determination (CPLR 217; Matter of De Millo v Borghard, 55 NY2d 216; Matter of Qualey v Shang, supra). Therefore, the proceeding was not timely commenced. Moreover, we find petitioner guilty of laches in having delayed for more than a year after leaving the detective division before making his initial claim. We have considered petitioner’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Gibbons, J. P., Weinstein, Thompson and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review respondents’ determination denying petitioner’s application for compensatory time for overtime accrued while he was assigned [810]*810to the detective division of the Police Department, City of Rye, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Dickinson, J.), dated July 16, 1981, which dismissed the proceeding. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The grievance filed by petitioner on August 29, 1980 sought essentially the same relief as that which respondents had denied on November 14, 1979. Insofar as petitioner’s second application was “analytically identical” to his prior unsuccessful application, it is being treated as a request for reconsideration (Matter of Qualey v Shang, 70 AD2d 619, 621). Such second application does not extend the four-month statutory period within which to seek review of an administrative determination (CPLR 217; Matter of De Millo v Borghard, 55 NY2d 216; Matter of Qualey v Shang, supra). Therefore, the proceeding was not timely commenced. Moreover, we find petitioner guilty of laches in having delayed for more than a year after leaving the detective division before making his initial claim. We have considered petitioner’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Gibbons, J. P., Weinstein, Thompson and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 A.D.2d 809, 455 N.Y.S.2d 743, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19041, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/berry-v-culross-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack