Glazer v. Hankin

50 A.D.2d 924, 377 N.Y.S.2d 616, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11850
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 31, 1975
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 50 A.D.2d 924 (Glazer v. Hankin) 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
Glazer v. Hankin, 50 A.D.2d 924, 377 N.Y.S.2d 616, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11850 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Opinion

— In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 inter alia to prohibit respondents from terminating her employment, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated September 8, 1975, which (1) denied the application, (2) dismissed the petition and (3) vacated a temporary restraining order. Judgment affirmed, with one bill of costs to respondents jointly. Special Term was entirely correct in holding that the position occupied by petitioner was in the unclassified civil service and that she therefore had no right, either at law or by contract, to be dismissed solely for misconduct or incompetency shown after a hearing on stated charges pursuant to section 75 of the Civil Service Law. The provisions of the faculty handbook requiring notice of nonreappointment by certain dates relate only to tenurable positions; they do not apply to petitioner; accordingly, she gained no right therefrom to continued employment or to the procedural protections of due process before being discharged. Petitioner’s Taylor Law claim of an unfair employer practice is not cognizable in the first instance in the courts (see Civil Service Law, § 205, subd 5, par [d]). Petitioner has briefed certain issues, and has submitted an appendix containing proof of facts relating to these issues, which were not raised at Special Term. An appellate court is not the proper forum in which to litigate and supply proof of disputed issues which were not previously raised (Slater v Gallman, 38 NY2d 1). Rabin, Acting P. J., Latham, Cohalan, Brennan and Munder, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Tepedino v. City of Long Beach
226 A.D.2d 446 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Travelers Insurance v. Littleton
218 A.D.2d 661 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
New York Site Development Corp. v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
217 A.D.2d 699 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
Hover v. Westchester Community College
116 A.D.2d 648 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
People v. Zambrano
114 A.D.2d 872 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
Berg v. Gerber
428 N.E.2d 398 (New York Court of Appeals, 1981)
Miller v. Loewenberg
75 A.D.2d 620 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1980)
Mullare Smith Co. v. Jet Drive General Marine Contracting Co.
72 A.D.2d 576 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1979)
Bosico v. Mertzel
71 A.D.2d 637 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1979)
M. D. Lundin Co. v. Board of Education
68 A.D.2d 881 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
50 A.D.2d 924, 377 N.Y.S.2d 616, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11850, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glazer-v-hankin-nyappdiv-1975.