Dmitra v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dmitra v. City of New York

8 A.D.3d 110, 778 N.Y.S.2d 165, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8336

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

DecidedJune 15, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 8 A.D.3d 110 (Dmitra v. City of New York) 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

Dmitra v. City of New York, 8 A.D.3d 110, 778 N.Y.S.2d 165, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8336 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (James A. Yates, J.), entered October 23, 2003, dismissing, as moot, a CFLR article 78 proceeding seeking to compel the municipal respondents to replace respondent provisional employees with permanent employees and to reconsider petitioner’s application for permanent appointment to the position in question, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

By the time the proceeding had been submitted for decision, no provisional employees any longer worked in the position in question, no vacancies for that position any longer existed and the eligible list for promotion to the position had expired. Thus, any decision as to the legality of the challenged provisional appointments could have had no practical effect on petitioner’s right to be considered for a permanent appointment. Accordingly, the proceeding was properly dismissed as moot (see Saratoga County Chamber of Commerce v Pataki, 100 NY2d 801, 810-811 [2003]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan, Lerner and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (James A. Yates, J.), entered October 23, 2003, dismissing, as moot, a CFLR article 78 proceeding seeking to compel the municipal respondents to replace respondent provisional employees with permanent employees and to reconsider petitioner’s application for permanent appointment to the position in question, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

By the time the proceeding had been submitted for decision, no provisional employees any longer worked in the position in question, no vacancies for that position any longer existed and the eligible list for promotion to the position had expired. Thus, any decision as to the legality of the challenged provisional appointments could have had no practical effect on petitioner’s right to be considered for a permanent appointment. Accordingly, the proceeding was properly dismissed as moot (see Saratoga County Chamber of Commerce v Pataki, 100 NY2d 801, 810-811 [2003]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan, Lerner and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 A.D.3d 110, 778 N.Y.S.2d 165, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8336, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dmitra-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack