Castillo v. Town of Oyster Bay

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Castillo v. Town of Oyster Bay

70 A.D.3d 939, 893 N.Y.S.2d 885

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

DecidedFebruary 16, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 70 A.D.3d 939 (Castillo v. Town of Oyster Bay) 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

Castillo v. Town of Oyster Bay, 70 A.D.3d 939, 893 N.Y.S.2d 885 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of a hearing officer dated November 7, 2008, which, after a hearing, recommended that a charge of misconduct against the petitioner be sustained and that his employment with the respondent Department of Public Works of the Town of Oyster Bay be terminated, the petitioner appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brandveen, J.), dated June 16, 2009, which granted the respondents’ motion to dismiss the proceeding on the ground, inter alia, that the petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, and, in effect, dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the respondents’ motion which was to dismiss the proceeding due to the petitioner’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies by pursuing administrative review procedures the respondents made available (see Watergate II Apts. v Buffalo Sewer Auth., 46 NY2d 52, 57 [1978]; Matter of Murray v Downey, 48 AD3d 817, 818 [2008]). The petitioner’s contention that pursuit of those procedures would have been futile is improperly raised for the first time in this Court (see Matter of Panetta v Carroll, 62 AD3d 1010 [2009]). Dillon, J.P., Miller, Eng and Roman, 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 a determination of a hearing officer dated November 7, 2008, which, after a hearing, recommended that a charge of misconduct against the petitioner be sustained and that his employment with the respondent Department of Public Works of the Town of Oyster Bay be terminated, the petitioner appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brandveen, J.), dated June 16, 2009, which granted the respondents’ motion to dismiss the proceeding on the ground, inter alia, that the petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, and, in effect, dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the respondents’ motion which was to dismiss the proceeding due to the petitioner’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies by pursuing administrative review procedures the respondents made available (see Watergate II Apts. v Buffalo Sewer Auth., 46 NY2d 52, 57 [1978]; Matter of Murray v Downey, 48 AD3d 817, 818 [2008]). The petitioner’s contention that pursuit of those procedures would have been futile is improperly raised for the first time in this Court (see Matter of Panetta v Carroll, 62 AD3d 1010 [2009]). Dillon, J.P., Miller, Eng and Roman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 A.D.3d 939, 893 N.Y.S.2d 885, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/castillo-v-town-of-oyster-bay-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack