Clark v. Schriro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Clark v. Schriro

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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 12, 2012·Published

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

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.

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

Pincite

91 A.D.3d 483 (Clark v. Schriro) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related