Canty v. Spooner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Canty v. Spooner

194 A.D.2d 396, 598 N.Y.S.2d 505

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

DecidedJune 10, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 194 A.D.2d 396 (Canty v. Spooner) 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

Canty v. Spooner, 194 A.D.2d 396, 598 N.Y.S.2d 505 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis R. Friedman, J.), entered September 25, 1992, which in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, dismissed the petition as against respondents the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings (OATH) and Administrative Law Judge Spooner, and granted the remaining respondents’ motion for a change of venue to Kings County, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Neither OATH nor Judge Spooner are proper parties because petitioner seeks no relief against them. The determination which petitioner seeks to review is that of the Transit [397]*397Authority terminating his employment (see, Matter of Simpson v Wolansky, 38 NY2d 391, 394). The remaining respondents’ motion for a change of venue to Kings County was properly granted. The decision to terminate petitioner was made by the Transit Authority whose offices are situated in Brooklyn. (CPLR 506 [b].) Petitioner’s additional claims are not yet ripe for review. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Ellerin and Asch, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis R. Friedman, J.), entered September 25, 1992, which in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, dismissed the petition as against respondents the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings (OATH) and Administrative Law Judge Spooner, and granted the remaining respondents’ motion for a change of venue to Kings County, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Neither OATH nor Judge Spooner are proper parties because petitioner seeks no relief against them. The determination which petitioner seeks to review is that of the Transit [397]*397Authority terminating his employment (see, Matter of Simpson v Wolansky, 38 NY2d 391, 394). The remaining respondents’ motion for a change of venue to Kings County was properly granted. The decision to terminate petitioner was made by the Transit Authority whose offices are situated in Brooklyn. (CPLR 506 [b].) Petitioner’s additional claims are not yet ripe for review. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Ellerin and Asch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

194 A.D.2d 396, 598 N.Y.S.2d 505, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/canty-v-spooner-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack