De Martino v. Weil

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

De Martino v. Weil

149 A.D.2d 705, 540 N.Y.S.2d 499, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5355

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

DecidedApril 24, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 149 A.D.2d 705 (De Martino v. Weil) 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

De Martino v. Weil, 149 A.D.2d 705, 540 N.Y.S.2d 499, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5355 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

— In (1) a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel the respondents Michael Weil and the New York City Employees’ Retirement System to pay the petitioner his pension benefits and to prohibit the respondents James B. Meehan, David Gunn, and the New York City Transit Authority from interfering with payment of those benefits, and (2) a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondents New York City Transit Authority, Daniel Gutman, and George Buckley, which dismissed the petitioner from his position as a New York City Transit Police officer, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated February 11, 1987, which denied both petitions in their entirety.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, it was not necessary for the respondent New York City Transit Authority to reinstate him on the payroll before holding a hearing to reconsider what penalty to impose (cf., Matter of Brooklyn Audit Co. v Department of Taxation & Fin., 275 NY 284; Matter of Flood v Monaghan, 201 Misc 560).

We have considered the petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Lawrence, J. P., Sullivan, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.

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

— In (1) a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel the respondents Michael Weil and the New York City Employees’ Retirement System to pay the petitioner his pension benefits and to prohibit the respondents James B. Meehan, David Gunn, and the New York City Transit Authority from interfering with payment of those benefits, and (2) a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondents New York City Transit Authority, Daniel Gutman, and George Buckley, which dismissed the petitioner from his position as a New York City Transit Police officer, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated February 11, 1987, which denied both petitions in their entirety.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, it was not necessary for the respondent New York City Transit Authority to reinstate him on the payroll before holding a hearing to reconsider what penalty to impose (cf., Matter of Brooklyn Audit Co. v Department of Taxation & Fin., 275 NY 284; Matter of Flood v Monaghan, 201 Misc 560).

We have considered the petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Lawrence, J. P., Sullivan, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

149 A.D.2d 705, 540 N.Y.S.2d 499, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5355, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/de-martino-v-weil-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack