Dziedzic v. Kelly

143 A.D.2d 537, 533 N.Y.S.2d 25, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10882
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided September 27, 1988·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Petitioner’s primary argument on appeal is that his Tier III hearing was not commenced in a timely fashion. We find that since the seven-day period for commencing petitioner’s hearing (7 NYCRR 251-5.1 [a]) ended on Veterans’ Day, a public holiday, respondent’s request for an extension of time and the commencement of the hearing on the next succeeding business day was timely (see, General Construction Law § 25-a [1]; cf., People ex rel. Frost v Meloni, 124 AD2d 1032, lv denied 69 NY2d 606; Matter of Picciano v Hammock, 92 AD2d 1043, 1044, lv denied 59 NY2d 606). Petitioner’s remaining argument regarding the penalty range for Tier III violations has no merit (see, Matter of Coleman v Kelly, 130 AD2d 976, affd [538] 72 NY2d 850). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J. — art 78.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Green, Pine and Davis, JJ.

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

Dziedzic v. Kelly, 143 A.D.2d 537, 533 N.Y.S.2d 25, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10882 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

143 A.D.2d 537 (Dziedzic v. Kelly) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Persing v. Coughlin
214 A.D.2d 145 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
Maldonado v. Coughlin
150 A.D.2d 692 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)