Dejnozka v. City of Saratoga Springs

New York Court of Appeals

Dejnozka v. City of Saratoga Springs

502 N.E.2d 1000, 68 N.Y.2d 947, 510 N.Y.S.2d 85, 1986 N.Y. LEXIS 20890

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 13, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 502 N.E.2d 1000 (Dejnozka v. City of Saratoga Springs) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dejnozka v. City of Saratoga Springs, 502 N.E.2d 1000, 68 N.Y.2d 947, 510 N.Y.S.2d 85, 1986 N.Y. LEXIS 20890 (N.Y. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The judgment of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated in the memorandum below. We would add that although the charges preferred against petitioner chiefly concerned disobedience of the Commissioner’s departmental policy, the Commissioner was not obliged to disqualify himself as the hearing officer. The Commissioner had no particular knowledge of material disputed facts. Whether the actual order petitioner disobeyed originated from [950]*950the Commissioner before being spoken by petitioner’s superior officer is immaterial. Petitioner remained bound to follow the order. Furthermore, the Commissioner’s conduct did not reflect partiality with regard to petitioner’s hearing (see, e.g., People ex rel. Packwood v Riley, 232 NY 283; Matter of Horton v Ames, 75 AD2d 853).

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone and Hancock, Jr., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The judgment of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated in the memorandum below. We would add that although the charges preferred against petitioner chiefly concerned disobedience of the Commissioner’s departmental policy, the Commissioner was not obliged to disqualify himself as the hearing officer. The Commissioner had no particular knowledge of material disputed facts. Whether the actual order petitioner disobeyed originated from [950]*950the Commissioner before being spoken by petitioner’s superior officer is immaterial. Petitioner remained bound to follow the order. Furthermore, the Commissioner’s conduct did not reflect partiality with regard to petitioner’s hearing (see, e.g., People ex rel. Packwood v Riley, 232 NY 283; Matter of Horton v Ames, 75 AD2d 853).

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone and Hancock, Jr., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

502 N.E.2d 1000, 68 N.Y.2d 947, 510 N.Y.S.2d 85, 1986 N.Y. LEXIS 20890, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dejnozka-v-city-of-saratoga-springs-ny-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack