Handy v. Westbury Union Free School District

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Handy v. Westbury Union Free School District

61 A.D.2d 1038, 403 N.Y.S.2d 289, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10703

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

DecidedMarch 27, 1978

StatusPublished

This text of 61 A.D.2d 1038 (Handy v. Westbury Union Free School District) 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

Handy v. Westbury Union Free School District, 61 A.D.2d 1038, 403 N.Y.S.2d 289, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10703 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to compel respondents to appoint petitioner to the position of director of physical education, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated October 7, 1977, which dismissed the petition. Judgment reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, and proceeding remitted to Special Term for a hearing arid further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. It was error to dismiss petitioner-appellant’s article 78 proceeding. Unlike Matter of Abrams v New York City Tr. Auth. (39 NY2d 990), the court would not be substituting its judicial supervision for the discretionary management of public business by public officials if it entertained this proceeding. Petitioner has alleged a violation of the mandates of 8 NYCRR 135.4 (c) (4) (iii) and the concealment of such violation. A hearing is required to resolve these issues (cf. Matter of Bruso v Board of Educ., 53 AD2d 692). Damiani, J. P., Titone, Suozzi and O’Connor, 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, inter alia, to compel respondents to appoint petitioner to the position of director of physical education, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated October 7, 1977, which dismissed the petition. Judgment reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, and proceeding remitted to Special Term for a hearing arid further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. It was error to dismiss petitioner-appellant’s article 78 proceeding. Unlike Matter of Abrams v New York City Tr. Auth. (39 NY2d 990), the court would not be substituting its judicial supervision for the discretionary management of public business by public officials if it entertained this proceeding. Petitioner has alleged a violation of the mandates of 8 NYCRR 135.4 (c) (4) (iii) and the concealment of such violation. A hearing is required to resolve these issues (cf. Matter of Bruso v Board of Educ., 53 AD2d 692). Damiani, J. P., Titone, Suozzi and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 A.D.2d 1038, 403 N.Y.S.2d 289, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10703, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/handy-v-westbury-union-free-school-district-nyappdiv-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack