Grassel v. Department of Education

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Grassel v. Department of Education

116 A.D.3d 566, 983 N.Y.S.2d 724

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

DecidedApril 17, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 116 A.D.3d 566 (Grassel v. Department of Education) 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

Grassel v. Department of Education, 116 A.D.3d 566, 983 N.Y.S.2d 724 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Anil C. Singh, J.), entered December 24, 2012, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied petitioner’s application to vacate the hearing officer’s opinion and award, dated May 14, 2012, sustaining disciplinary charges, imposing a penalty of suspension without pay, and ordering reinstatement within 30 days, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner erroneously commenced this proceeding to challenge the opinion and award by filing a motion in Supreme Court under the index number for a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 in which he had challenged respondent’s prior determinations. This error required dismissal of petitioner’s application. Concur — Friedman, J.P, Sweeny, Andrias, Gische and Clark, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2012 NY Slip Op 33054(U).]

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

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Anil C. Singh, J.), entered December 24, 2012, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied petitioner’s application to vacate the hearing officer’s opinion and award, dated May 14, 2012, sustaining disciplinary charges, imposing a penalty of suspension without pay, and ordering reinstatement within 30 days, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner erroneously commenced this proceeding to challenge the opinion and award by filing a motion in Supreme Court under the index number for a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 in which he had challenged respondent’s prior determinations. This error required dismissal of petitioner’s application. Concur — Friedman, J.P, Sweeny, Andrias, Gische and Clark, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2012 NY Slip Op 33054(U).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 A.D.3d 566, 983 N.Y.S.2d 724, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grassel-v-department-of-education-nyappdiv-2014.