Iocovello v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Iocovello v. City of New York

272 A.D.2d 201, 708 N.Y.S.2d 294, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5662

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

DecidedMay 18, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 272 A.D.2d 201 (Iocovello v. City of New York) 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

Iocovello v. City of New York, 272 A.D.2d 201, 708 N.Y.S.2d 294, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5662 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (William Wetzel, J.), entered November 23, 1999, which denied petitioner’s motion to reargue respondents’ previously granted motion to dismiss petitioner’s application pursuant to CPLR article 78, which application sought a writ of mandamus to compel the municipal respondents to conduct an investigation into his termination from the Department of Sanitation, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

Since petitioner failed to set forth new or additional facts in support of his motion, the motion was properly considered, and denied in the appealed order, as one for reargument only. It follows that petitioner’s appeal must be dismissed, since no appeal lies from the denial of reargument (see, Mariani v Dyer, 193 AD2d 456, 458, lv denied 82 NY2d 658). In any case, were the appealed order reviewable, we would affirm because the decision not to conduct an investigation was a matter of discretion and the remedy of mandamus does not lie to compel action involving the exercise of discretion or judgment (see, Matter of Mullen v Axelrod, 74 NY2d 580, 582). Concur — Williams, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli and Buckley, JJ.

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

—Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (William Wetzel, J.), entered November 23, 1999, which denied petitioner’s motion to reargue respondents’ previously granted motion to dismiss petitioner’s application pursuant to CPLR article 78, which application sought a writ of mandamus to compel the municipal respondents to conduct an investigation into his termination from the Department of Sanitation, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

Since petitioner failed to set forth new or additional facts in support of his motion, the motion was properly considered, and denied in the appealed order, as one for reargument only. It follows that petitioner’s appeal must be dismissed, since no appeal lies from the denial of reargument (see, Mariani v Dyer, 193 AD2d 456, 458, lv denied 82 NY2d 658). In any case, were the appealed order reviewable, we would affirm because the decision not to conduct an investigation was a matter of discretion and the remedy of mandamus does not lie to compel action involving the exercise of discretion or judgment (see, Matter of Mullen v Axelrod, 74 NY2d 580, 582). Concur — Williams, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 201, 708 N.Y.S.2d 294, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5662, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/iocovello-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack