Feustel v. Rosenblum

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Feustel v. Rosenblum

36 A.D.3d 615, 825 N.Y.S.2d 916

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

DecidedJanuary 9, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 36 A.D.3d 615 (Feustel v. Rosenblum) 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

Feustel v. Rosenblum, 36 A.D.3d 615, 825 N.Y.S.2d 916 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to Public Officers Law § 36 to remove the respondents Scott S. Rosenblum, Robert Lynn Cox III, Hugh A. O’Brien III, Bruce A. Rich, Pia Notaro Carroll, and Mario Posillico from public office in the Incorporated Village of Saltaire.

Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

The petitioner failed to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the respondents engaged in any intentional wrongdoing, self-dealing transactions, or gross dereliction of duties. Thus, none of the respondents’ conduct rose to the level of malfeasance, misconduct, maladministration, or malversation as to warrant removal from public office pursuant to Public Officers Law § 36 (see Matter of Gumo v Canzoneri, 276 AD2d 485 [2000]; Matter of Deats v Carpenter, 61 AD2d 320 [1978]; Matter of Pisciotta v Dendievel, 41 AD2d 949 [1973]). Santucci, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein and Skelos, JJ., concur.

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

Proceeding pursuant to Public Officers Law § 36 to remove the respondents Scott S. Rosenblum, Robert Lynn Cox III, Hugh A. O’Brien III, Bruce A. Rich, Pia Notaro Carroll, and Mario Posillico from public office in the Incorporated Village of Saltaire.

Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

The petitioner failed to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the respondents engaged in any intentional wrongdoing, self-dealing transactions, or gross dereliction of duties. Thus, none of the respondents’ conduct rose to the level of malfeasance, misconduct, maladministration, or malversation as to warrant removal from public office pursuant to Public Officers Law § 36 (see Matter of Gumo v Canzoneri, 276 AD2d 485 [2000]; Matter of Deats v Carpenter, 61 AD2d 320 [1978]; Matter of Pisciotta v Dendievel, 41 AD2d 949 [1973]). Santucci, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein and Skelos, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

36 A.D.3d 615, 825 N.Y.S.2d 916, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/feustel-v-rosenblum-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack