Hammer v. Suffolk County Department of Labor

51 A.D.2d 549, 378 N.Y.S.2d 427, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10797
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 19, 1976
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 51 A.D.2d 549 (Hammer v. Suffolk County Department of Labor) 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
Hammer v. Suffolk County Department of Labor, 51 A.D.2d 549, 378 N.Y.S.2d 427, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10797 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review respondent’s determination, dated January 15, 1974 and made after a hearing, (1) that petitioner was guilty of insubordination and (2) suspending her for nine days without pay, in which respondent cross-moved to dismiss the petition on the ground of Statute of Limitations, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated September 10, 1974, which granted the cross motion. Judgment reversed, on the law, without costs, cross motion denied, and proceeding remanded to Special Term for a determination on the merits. No fact questions were presented on this appeal. Petitioner, when she appeared in the disciplinary proceeding before respondent, was represented by counsel. Respondent should have notified said counsel of its determination at the same time petitioner was notified, instead of some 40 days later. This proceeding, which was commenced within four months of the date notification was given to petitioner’s attorney, was, therefore, timely (cf. CPLR 217, 7804, subd [g]). Rabin, Acting P. J., Latham, Margett and Christ, JJ., concur; Shapiro, J., dissents and votes to affirm, with the following memorandum: It is unnecessary to decide whether this proceeding was timely commenced by petitioner since, in any event, based upon the entire record which is before us, the finding that petitioner was insubordinate is supported by substantial evidence; her suspension for nine days, with consequent loss of salary for that period, was not an abuse of discretion.

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

Related

Sutherland v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
122 A.D.3d 759 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Goldstein v. Niagara Falls Memorial Medical Center
143 A.D.2d 515 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)
Bianca v. Frank
371 N.E.2d 792 (New York Court of Appeals, 1977)
Bianca v. Frank
55 A.D.2d 642 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
51 A.D.2d 549, 378 N.Y.S.2d 427, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10797, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hammer-v-suffolk-county-department-of-labor-nyappdiv-1976.