Glasbrenner v. Bellacosa

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Glasbrenner v. Bellacosa

139 A.D.2d 491, 527 N.Y.S.2d 42, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3726

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

DecidedApril 4, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 139 A.D.2d 491 (Glasbrenner v. Bellacosa) 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

Glasbrenner v. Bellacosa, 139 A.D.2d 491, 527 N.Y.S.2d 42, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3726 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Director of Employee Relations of the Unified Court System, dated October 29, 1985, which rejected the petitioner’s claim that her duties in preparing, calling and annotating the Motion Calendar on various occasions constituted out-of-title work, [492]*492and denied her grievance, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Santucci, J.), dated January 20, 1987, which set aside the determination and ordered the appellant to compensate the petitioner.

Ordered the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the determination of the Director of Employee Relations is confirmed, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits.

Pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement between the parties, the petitioner’s duties in preparing, calling and annotating the Motion Calendar were " 'reasonably related’ ” to the duties enumerated in her title specification and thus did not constitute out-of-title work (see, Court Officers Benevolent Assn. v Sise, 127 AD2d 625, lv denied, 69 NY2d 612). Thompson, J. P., Brown, Weinstein and Balletta, 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 Director of Employee Relations of the Unified Court System, dated October 29, 1985, which rejected the petitioner’s claim that her duties in preparing, calling and annotating the Motion Calendar on various occasions constituted out-of-title work, [492]*492and denied her grievance, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Santucci, J.), dated January 20, 1987, which set aside the determination and ordered the appellant to compensate the petitioner.

Ordered the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the determination of the Director of Employee Relations is confirmed, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits.

Pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement between the parties, the petitioner’s duties in preparing, calling and annotating the Motion Calendar were " 'reasonably related’ ” to the duties enumerated in her title specification and thus did not constitute out-of-title work (see, Court Officers Benevolent Assn. v Sise, 127 AD2d 625, lv denied, 69 NY2d 612). Thompson, J. P., Brown, Weinstein and Balletta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 A.D.2d 491, 527 N.Y.S.2d 42, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3726, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glasbrenner-v-bellacosa-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack