Crimi v. Droskoski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Crimi v. Droskoski

217 A.D.2d 698, 630 N.Y.S.2d 337, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8175

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

DecidedJuly 31, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 217 A.D.2d 698 (Crimi v. Droskoski) 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

Crimi v. Droskoski, 217 A.D.2d 698, 630 N.Y.S.2d 337, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8175 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pur[699]*699suant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Stanley Droskoski dated April 10, 1993, which adopted the recommendation of a Hearing Officer, made after a hearing, finding that the petitioner is medically able to perform the full-time duties of a police officer without restrictions.

Adjudged that the petition is granted, on the law, with costs, the determination is annulled, and the matter is remitted to the respondents for further proceedings consistent herewith.

Although we find that there is substantial evidence in the record to support the determination of the respondent Stanley Droskoski, under the particular circumstances of this case, the petitioner is entitled to a new hearing. The petitioner was compelled to proceed pro se after his request for an adjournment in order to obtain new counsel was denied. The petitioner’s former attorney, who had been provided to the petitioner by the Police Benevolent Association, resigned from his employment with the Police Benevolent Association shortly before the hearing date, and this fact, in light of all of the other circumstances presented, excludes the possibility that the petitioner’s request for an adjournment was a delaying tactic. Thus, we conclude that the denial of the petitioner’s request deprived the petitioner of his due process rights (see, Matter of Dennelly v County Attorney of Nassau County, 88 AD2d 912, 913; see also, Matter of Mera v Tax Appeals Tribunal, 204 AD2d 818, 820; Patricia W. Walston, P. C. v Axelrod, 103 AD2d 769, 771). Bracken, J. P., Balletta, Copertino and Hart, JJ., concur.

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

Proceeding pur[699]*699suant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Stanley Droskoski dated April 10, 1993, which adopted the recommendation of a Hearing Officer, made after a hearing, finding that the petitioner is medically able to perform the full-time duties of a police officer without restrictions.

Adjudged that the petition is granted, on the law, with costs, the determination is annulled, and the matter is remitted to the respondents for further proceedings consistent herewith.

Although we find that there is substantial evidence in the record to support the determination of the respondent Stanley Droskoski, under the particular circumstances of this case, the petitioner is entitled to a new hearing. The petitioner was compelled to proceed pro se after his request for an adjournment in order to obtain new counsel was denied. The petitioner’s former attorney, who had been provided to the petitioner by the Police Benevolent Association, resigned from his employment with the Police Benevolent Association shortly before the hearing date, and this fact, in light of all of the other circumstances presented, excludes the possibility that the petitioner’s request for an adjournment was a delaying tactic. Thus, we conclude that the denial of the petitioner’s request deprived the petitioner of his due process rights (see, Matter of Dennelly v County Attorney of Nassau County, 88 AD2d 912, 913; see also, Matter of Mera v Tax Appeals Tribunal, 204 AD2d 818, 820; Patricia W. Walston, P. C. v Axelrod, 103 AD2d 769, 771). Bracken, J. P., Balletta, Copertino and Hart, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

217 A.D.2d 698, 630 N.Y.S.2d 337, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8175, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crimi-v-droskoski-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack