Eriksen v. Town of Brookhaven

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Eriksen v. Town of Brookhaven

119 A.D.2d 674, 501 N.Y.S.2d 298, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55591

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 14, 1986·Published

Opinion

— In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Commissioner of Planning, Environment and Development of the Town of Brookhaven, effective September 4, 1984, which terminated the petitioner’s employment as a probationary building inspector, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gerard, J.), dated May 6, 1985, which dismissed the proceeding.

Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

There was substantial compliance with Suffolk County Civil Service rule XIII (6) (see, Reilly v Shaw, 81 AD2d 610). The determination under review was not arbitrary or capricious (see, Matter of Talamo v Murphy, 38 NY2d 637, 639), and the petitioner, as a probationary employee, had no right to a hearing (Matter of Bonney v Dilworth, 99 AD2d 468). We have examined the petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Weinstein, J. P., Rubin, Eiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.

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

— In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Commissioner of Planning, Environment and Development of the Town of Brookhaven, effective September 4, 1984, which terminated the petitioner’s employment as a probationary building inspector, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gerard, J.), dated May 6, 1985, which dismissed the proceeding.

Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

There was substantial compliance with Suffolk County Civil Service rule XIII (6) (see, Reilly v Shaw, 81 AD2d 610). The determination under review was not arbitrary or capricious (see, Matter of Talamo v Murphy, 38 NY2d 637, 639), and the petitioner, as a probationary employee, had no right to a hearing (Matter of Bonney v Dilworth, 99 AD2d 468). We have examined the petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Weinstein, J. P., Rubin, Eiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Eriksen v. Town of Brookhaven, 119 A.D.2d 674, 501 N.Y.S.2d 298, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55591 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

119 A.D.2d 674 (Eriksen v. Town of Brookhaven) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related