Crook v. Village of East Hills

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Crook v. Village of East Hills

285 A.D.2d 462, 727 N.Y.S.2d 339, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6899

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

DecidedJuly 2, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 285 A.D.2d 462 (Crook v. Village of East Hills) 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

Crook v. Village of East Hills, 285 A.D.2d 462, 727 N.Y.S.2d 339, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6899 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Village of East Hills, dated August 20, 1999, terminating the petitioner’s employment as a motor equipment operator in the Department of Sanitation, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lally, J.), dated April 10, 2000, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The determination of the respondent Village of East Hills terminating the petitioner’s employment was not arbitrary or capricious, as it had a rational basis (see, Matter of Macina v North Salem Cent. School Dist., 221 AD2d 538, 539; Matter of Atkinson v Koch, 161 AD2d 152). Altman, J. P., H. Miller, Smith and Cozier, 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 the respondent Village of East Hills, dated August 20, 1999, terminating the petitioner’s employment as a motor equipment operator in the Department of Sanitation, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lally, J.), dated April 10, 2000, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The determination of the respondent Village of East Hills terminating the petitioner’s employment was not arbitrary or capricious, as it had a rational basis (see, Matter of Macina v North Salem Cent. School Dist., 221 AD2d 538, 539; Matter of Atkinson v Koch, 161 AD2d 152). Altman, J. P., H. Miller, Smith and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

285 A.D.2d 462, 727 N.Y.S.2d 339, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6899, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crook-v-village-of-east-hills-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack