Garelick v. Dowling

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Garelick v. Dowling

59 A.D.2d 733, 398 N.Y.S.2d 579, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13726

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

DecidedOctober 17, 1977

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 59 A.D.2d 733 (Garelick v. Dowling) 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

Garelick v. Dowling, 59 A.D.2d 733, 398 N.Y.S.2d 579, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13726 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel respondents to rescind administrative changes in the work assignment of petitioner, an employee of the Nassau County Department of Health, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated March 31, 1977, which dismissed the petition. Judgment affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. Petitioner-appellant was reassigned "laterally”, at the discretion of the administrative head of her department, to promote efficiency within the department. There was no change in job title, function or salary. Thus, the extraordinary remedy here sought was properly denied at Special Term (see McGraw v Shapiro, 56 AD2d 624). Petitioner may, of course, pursue her grievance before the appropriate administrative body. Hopkins, J. P., Lat-ham, Margett and Rabin, 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 compel respondents to rescind administrative changes in the work assignment of petitioner, an employee of the Nassau County Department of Health, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated March 31, 1977, which dismissed the petition. Judgment affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. Petitioner-appellant was reassigned "laterally”, at the discretion of the administrative head of her department, to promote efficiency within the department. There was no change in job title, function or salary. Thus, the extraordinary remedy here sought was properly denied at Special Term (see McGraw v Shapiro, 56 AD2d 624). Petitioner may, of course, pursue her grievance before the appropriate administrative body. Hopkins, J. P., Lat-ham, Margett and Rabin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 A.D.2d 733, 398 N.Y.S.2d 579, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13726, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garelick-v-dowling-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack