Erdey v. City of New York

129 A.D.3d 546, 11 N.Y.S.3d 592
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 18, 2015
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 129 A.D.3d 546 (Erdey 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
Erdey v. City of New York, 129 A.D.3d 546, 11 N.Y.S.3d 592 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered April 24, 2014, denying the petition, except for the second cause of action, on which relief was previously granted, inter alia, to compel respondents to expunge all materials placed in petitioner’s personnel file related to a finding that he violated respondent Fire Department’s (FDNY) Equal Employment Opportunity policy or, in the alternative, to compel respondents to grant petitioner a full and fair opportunity to challenge the allegations that he violated the policy, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner waived any rights to the relief he seeks, the expungement of the subject materials from his personnel file or an opportunity to be heard on the allegations, in a September 27, 2011 agreement with FDNY settling disciplinary charges against him (see Matter of Miller v Coughlin, 59 NY2d 490 [1983]; Matter of Abramovich v Board of Educ. of Cent. School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Brookhaven & Smithtown, 46 NY2d 450, 455 [1979], cert denied 444 US 845 [1979]). His reliance on Matter of D'Angelo v Scoppetta (19 NY3d 663 [2012]) is misplaced, since there was no waiver in that case. Petitioner’s arguments that the waiver provisions of the settlement agreement are inapplicable to the instant case were improperly raised for the first time in his reply brief.

Petitioner’s contention that the court should have awarded [547]*547him attorneys’ fees is not properly before us since it was raised for the first time in his reply brief.

We have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Tom, Friedman and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Related

WV Partners LLC v. Hudson Private Corp.
2025 NY Slip Op 01333 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Matter of Andrea S. v. Paul Y.
2024 NY Slip Op 03389 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
513 W. 26th Realty LLC v. George Billis Galleries, Inc.
2023 NY Slip Op 05308 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
RCM Tech. Inc. v. Maric Mech., Inc.
2023 NY Slip Op 03210 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
Yau v. Yau
73 Misc. 3d 134(A) (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Newell v. City of New York
2020 NY Slip Op 833 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Woodward v. Levine
2020 NY Slip Op 68 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Matter of TCR Sports Broadcasting Holding, LLP v. WN Partner, LLC
2017 NY Slip Op 5689 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
E.D. & F. Man Sugar, Inc. v. ZZY Distributors, Inc.
2017 NY Slip Op 3710 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
National Financial Partners Corp. v. USA Tax & Insurance Services, Inc.
2016 NY Slip Op 8112 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Board of Managers of One Strivers Row Condominium v. Giwa
134 A.D.3d 514 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
129 A.D.3d 546, 11 N.Y.S.3d 592, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/erdey-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2015.