Kane v. Kerik

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kane v. Kerik

300 A.D.2d 182, 750 N.Y.S.2d 862, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12830

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

DecidedDecember 24, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 300 A.D.2d 182 (Kane v. Kerik) 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

Kane v. Kerik, 300 A.D.2d 182, 750 N.Y.S.2d 862, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12830 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered June 12, 2001, which granted the petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to the extent of annulling the determination of respondent Police Commissioner, dated October 13, 2000, which summarily terminated petitioner John Kane from his position as a police officer, reinstating him with back pay, and remitting the matter to respondent Police Department for an administrative hearing, unanimously reversed, on the facts, without costs, the order vacated, and the matter remanded to the Supreme Court for proceedings de novo.

We agree with the parties that the dispute as to the calculation of petitioner’s probationary period should be heard anew before the Supreme Court. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Saxe and Marlow, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered June 12, 2001, which granted the petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to the extent of annulling the determination of respondent Police Commissioner, dated October 13, 2000, which summarily terminated petitioner John Kane from his position as a police officer, reinstating him with back pay, and remitting the matter to respondent Police Department for an administrative hearing, unanimously reversed, on the facts, without costs, the order vacated, and the matter remanded to the Supreme Court for proceedings de novo.

We agree with the parties that the dispute as to the calculation of petitioner’s probationary period should be heard anew before the Supreme Court. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Saxe and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

300 A.D.2d 182, 750 N.Y.S.2d 862, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12830, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kane-v-kerik-nyappdiv-2002.