Brockman v. Dordelman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brockman v. Dordelman

48 A.D.2d 670, 367 N.Y.S.2d 566, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9687

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

DecidedMay 12, 1975

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 48 A.D.2d 670 (Brockman v. Dordelman) 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

Brockman v. Dordelman, 48 A.D.2d 670, 367 N.Y.S.2d 566, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9687 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel appellants to remit back pay, etc., to petitioner for the period of his suspension, which, pending the hearing of formal charges against him, exceeded the statutory period of 30 days (see Civil Service Law, § 75, subd 3), the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered August 28, 1974, which granted the application. Judgment reversed, on the law, without costs, and proceeding dismissed on the merits. Since the delay in holding the hearing which eventually resulted in petitioner’s discharge was due exclusively to his conduct in procuring repeated stays in his attempt to permanently. enjoin the hearing, he is in no position to invoke the statutory limit (Matter of Bentley v Henninger, 10 AD2d 900; cf. Matter of Amkraut v Hults, 21 AD2d 260). Latham, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Christ, Brennan and Munder, 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 compel appellants to remit back pay, etc., to petitioner for the period of his suspension, which, pending the hearing of formal charges against him, exceeded the statutory period of 30 days (see Civil Service Law, § 75, subd 3), the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered August 28, 1974, which granted the application. Judgment reversed, on the law, without costs, and proceeding dismissed on the merits. Since the delay in holding the hearing which eventually resulted in petitioner’s discharge was due exclusively to his conduct in procuring repeated stays in his attempt to permanently. enjoin the hearing, he is in no position to invoke the statutory limit (Matter of Bentley v Henninger, 10 AD2d 900; cf. Matter of Amkraut v Hults, 21 AD2d 260). Latham, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Christ, Brennan and Munder, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 A.D.2d 670, 367 N.Y.S.2d 566, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9687, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brockman-v-dordelman-nyappdiv-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack