Cooke v. City of Long Beach

247 A.D.2d 538, 669 N.Y.S.2d 312, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1501
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 17, 1998
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 247 A.D.2d 538 (Cooke v. City of Long Beach) 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
Cooke v. City of Long Beach, 247 A.D.2d 538, 669 N.Y.S.2d 312, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1501 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel the respondent, the City of Long Beach, to restore the petitioner to her original position as a bus driver, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCarty, J.), dated January 30, 1997, which denied her petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the petition is granted, and the petitioner is restored to her position as a bus driver for the City of Long Beach, with the salary and other benefits which have attached to that position from June 30, 1996, to the date of restoration, minus any workers’ compensation benefits she received during that period.

The respondent contends that the petitioner’s argument that she did not receive timely notice of her impending termination from employment pursuant to Civil Service Law § 71 should not be considered because it is being raised for the first time on appeal. We disagree. The petitioner’s brief does not allege any new facts, but merely raises a legal argument which could not have been avoided by the respondent if it had been raised in the Supreme Court. Thus, this argument raised by the petitioner may be considered for the first time on appeal (see, Block v Magee, 146 AD2d 730, 732-733).

The respondent failed to serve notice to the petitioner of the impending termination of her employment at least 30 days prior thereto pursuant to 4 NYCRR 5.9 (c) (2). Since the respondent’s notice did not comply with that regulation or the requirements of due process (see, Matter of Prue v Hunt, 78 NY2d 364; Matter of La Joie v County of Niagara, 239 AD2d 908), the petitioner should be restored to her prior position. Mangano, P. J., Miller, Pizzuto and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Chaudhry v. Vital Holding Co.
51 A.D.3d 844 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Rochester v. Quincy Mutual Fire Insurance
10 A.D.3d 417 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Postma v. STC Bus Transportation Corp.
305 A.D.2d 481 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Dawson v. Raimon Realty Corp.
303 A.D.2d 708 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Cooke v. City of Long Beach
281 A.D.2d 478 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance v. Daley
273 A.D.2d 315 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Galletta v. Siu-Mei Yip
271 A.D.2d 486 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Hicki v. Choice Capital Corp.
264 A.D.2d 710 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
247 A.D.2d 538, 669 N.Y.S.2d 312, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1501, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cooke-v-city-of-long-beach-nyappdiv-1998.