Kolanda v. Brunner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kolanda v. Brunner

27 A.D.2d 886, 278 N.Y.S.2d 22, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4694

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

DecidedMarch 9, 1967

StatusPublished

This text of 27 A.D.2d 886 (Kolanda v. Brunner) 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

Kolanda v. Brunner, 27 A.D.2d 886, 278 N.Y.S.2d 22, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4694 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Aulisi, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court which denied petitioner’s motion to dismiss certain charges against him in a police department disciplinary action. Petitioner contends that respondents have not adequately responded to the court’s orders and judgments requiring bills of. particulars to amplify the specifications against him. It is our view, however, that insofar as they are amplified by the second bill of particulars, the charges appear adequate at this point, but can better be assessed in light of the proof adduced after the proceeding is had. CPLR 7801 provides that an article 78 proceeding can not be used to challenge a determination “ which is not final ”. The authorities relied upon by petitioner are all eases where review of the charges was had on review of the whole ease, a remedy petitioner will be entitled to here pursuant to section 188-g of the Village Law, Order affirmed, without costs. [887]*887Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Aulisi and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum by Aulisi, J.

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

Aulisi, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court which denied petitioner’s motion to dismiss certain charges against him in a police department disciplinary action. Petitioner contends that respondents have not adequately responded to the court’s orders and judgments requiring bills of. particulars to amplify the specifications against him. It is our view, however, that insofar as they are amplified by the second bill of particulars, the charges appear adequate at this point, but can better be assessed in light of the proof adduced after the proceeding is had. CPLR 7801 provides that an article 78 proceeding can not be used to challenge a determination “ which is not final ”. The authorities relied upon by petitioner are all eases where review of the charges was had on review of the whole ease, a remedy petitioner will be entitled to here pursuant to section 188-g of the Village Law, Order affirmed, without costs. [887]*887Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Aulisi and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum by Aulisi, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.2d 886, 278 N.Y.S.2d 22, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4694, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kolanda-v-brunner-nyappdiv-1967.