Kapetanos v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kapetanos v. City of New York

37 A.D.3d 279, 831 N.Y.S.2d 38

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

DecidedFebruary 15, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 37 A.D.3d 279 (Kapetanos 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

Kapetanos v. City of New York, 37 A.D.3d 279, 831 N.Y.S.2d 38 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marylin G. Diamond, J.), entered September 27, 2005, which denied the petition challenging respondents’ determination not to extend the duration of a 2000 eligible list for the civil service position of associate fraud investigator, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Eetitioners’ bare and conclusory allegations were insufficient to sustain the petition seeking to overturn the administrative determination as arbitrary, even as against a pre-answer motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action (cf. Matter of Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v State of New York, 300 AD2d 949, 952-953 [2002]). Moreover, petitioners do not plead, even in conclusory fashion, that the “restriction” allegedly giving rise to respondents’ discretion to extend the eligibility list was “attributable to a financial emergency” (see Civil Service Law § 56 [1]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Andrias, Friedman, Sweeny and Kavanagh, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marylin G. Diamond, J.), entered September 27, 2005, which denied the petition challenging respondents’ determination not to extend the duration of a 2000 eligible list for the civil service position of associate fraud investigator, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Eetitioners’ bare and conclusory allegations were insufficient to sustain the petition seeking to overturn the administrative determination as arbitrary, even as against a pre-answer motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action (cf. Matter of Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v State of New York, 300 AD2d 949, 952-953 [2002]). Moreover, petitioners do not plead, even in conclusory fashion, that the “restriction” allegedly giving rise to respondents’ discretion to extend the eligibility list was “attributable to a financial emergency” (see Civil Service Law § 56 [1]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Andrias, Friedman, Sweeny and Kavanagh, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 A.D.3d 279, 831 N.Y.S.2d 38, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kapetanos-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack