Horkan v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Horkan v. New York City Transit Authority

20 A.D.2d 565, 246 N.Y.S.2d 116, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2628

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

DecidedDecember 23, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 20 A.D.2d 565 (Horkan v. New York City Transit Authority) 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

Horkan v. New York City Transit Authority, 20 A.D.2d 565, 246 N.Y.S.2d 116, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2628 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding under article 78 of the former Civil Practice Act, by petitioner, an employee of the New York City Transit Authority: (a) to annul its determination made November 28, 1962 after a hearing, sustaining against him charges that he violated its rules 4 (a), 4 (d) and 11 (a), and demoting him from his position of motorman to the position of conductor as of December 3, 1962; and (b) to direct the Authority to reinstate him to his former position. By order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, made May 15, 1963, pursuant to statute (former Civ. Prac. Act, § 1296), the proceeding has been transferred to this court for disposition. Determination confirmed, without costs. While we find no substantial evidence in this record to support the charge that petitioner violated rules 4 (a) and 11 (a), there is sufficient evidence to support the charge that he violated rule 4 (d). Beldock, P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.

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

Proceeding under article 78 of the former Civil Practice Act, by petitioner, an employee of the New York City Transit Authority: (a) to annul its determination made November 28, 1962 after a hearing, sustaining against him charges that he violated its rules 4 (a), 4 (d) and 11 (a), and demoting him from his position of motorman to the position of conductor as of December 3, 1962; and (b) to direct the Authority to reinstate him to his former position. By order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, made May 15, 1963, pursuant to statute (former Civ. Prac. Act, § 1296), the proceeding has been transferred to this court for disposition. Determination confirmed, without costs. While we find no substantial evidence in this record to support the charge that petitioner violated rules 4 (a) and 11 (a), there is sufficient evidence to support the charge that he violated rule 4 (d). Beldock, P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 A.D.2d 565, 246 N.Y.S.2d 116, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2628, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/horkan-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-1963.