Carey v. Board of Fire Commissioners, Riverhead Fire Department

225 A.D.2d 765, 639 N.Y.2d 960, 639 N.Y.S.2d 960, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3147

This text of 225 A.D.2d 765 (Carey v. Board of Fire Commissioners, Riverhead Fire Department) 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
Carey v. Board of Fire Commissioners, Riverhead Fire Department, 225 A.D.2d 765, 639 N.Y.2d 960, 639 N.Y.S.2d 960, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3147 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Opinion

It is well settled that the construction of regulations by the agency charged with their enforcement will not be overturned by the courts unless that construction is irrational or unreasonable (see, Matter of Kaufman v Sarafan, 59 NY2d 855, 857; [766]*766Village of Hempstead v Roman Catholic Church of Our Lady of Loretto, 198 AD2d 409, 410). We find that the respondent’s construction of Rule 7-6 of the House Rules of the Riverhead Fire Department was not irrational or unreasonable, and therefore, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding. Rosenblatt, J. P., Sullivan, Copertino, Santucci and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Kaufman v. Sarafan
452 N.E.2d 1252 (New York Court of Appeals, 1983)
Village of Hempstead v. Roman Catholic Church of Our Lady of Loretto at Hempstead
198 A.D.2d 409 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
225 A.D.2d 765, 639 N.Y.2d 960, 639 N.Y.S.2d 960, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3147, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carey-v-board-of-fire-commissioners-riverhead-fire-department-nyappdiv-1996.