Clark v. Schriro

91 A.D.3d 483, 935 N.Y.2d 887

This text of 91 A.D.3d 483 (Clark v. Schriro) 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
Clark v. Schriro, 91 A.D.3d 483, 935 N.Y.2d 887 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Opinion

Supreme Court properly found that since respondents were not required to provide petitioner with a hearing within a specifically prescribed period, but only within a “reasonable time” (NY City Charter § 1046 [c] [1]), their failure to do so for more than a year after charging petitioner with misconduct did not constitute failure to fulfill a nondiscretionary duty or perform a purely ministerial act. Accordingly, the petition did not plead an action for mandamus to compel (see Matter of Gar[484]*484rison Protective Servs. v Office of Comptroller of City of N.Y., 92 NY2d 732, 736 [1999]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Andrias, Saxe and Freedman, JJ.

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

Related

Garrison Protective Services, Inc. v. Office of the Comptroller
708 N.E.2d 994 (New York Court of Appeals, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
91 A.D.3d 483, 935 N.Y.2d 887, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clark-v-schriro-nyappdiv-2012.