Mallwitz v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mallwitz v. State

88 A.D.2d 786, 451 N.Y.S.2d 1022, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17043

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

DecidedMay 21, 1982

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 88 A.D.2d 786 (Mallwitz v. State) 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

Mallwitz v. State, 88 A.D.2d 786, 451 N.Y.S.2d 1022, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17043 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order unanimously modified and, as modified, affirmed, without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: Inasmuch as we find no merit to petitioner’s cross appeal and no reason for not proceeding expeditiously with the administrative hearing, we vacate the stay of the disciplinary proceeding. Respondents’ answer raises factual issues pertaining to whether petitioner, through his own dilatory conduct, has forfeited his claim to back pay under subdivision 3 of section 75 of the Civil Service Law (see Gerber v New York City Housing Auth., 42 NY2d 162; Matter of Fusco v Griffin, 67 AD2d 827). Accordingly, that part of the [787]*787order directing that petitioner receive full back pay and allowances is reversed and the matter is remitted to Special Term for a hearing on the question of responsibility for the delay (see Gerber v New York City Housing Auth., supra, p 167). The hearing should be conducted following the completion of administrative proceedings. (Appeals from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Rosenbloom, J. — art 78.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Doerr, Denman, Boomer and Schnepp, JJ.

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

— Order unanimously modified and, as modified, affirmed, without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: Inasmuch as we find no merit to petitioner’s cross appeal and no reason for not proceeding expeditiously with the administrative hearing, we vacate the stay of the disciplinary proceeding. Respondents’ answer raises factual issues pertaining to whether petitioner, through his own dilatory conduct, has forfeited his claim to back pay under subdivision 3 of section 75 of the Civil Service Law (see Gerber v New York City Housing Auth., 42 NY2d 162; Matter of Fusco v Griffin, 67 AD2d 827). Accordingly, that part of the [787]*787order directing that petitioner receive full back pay and allowances is reversed and the matter is remitted to Special Term for a hearing on the question of responsibility for the delay (see Gerber v New York City Housing Auth., supra, p 167). The hearing should be conducted following the completion of administrative proceedings. (Appeals from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Rosenbloom, J. — art 78.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Doerr, Denman, Boomer and Schnepp, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 A.D.2d 786, 451 N.Y.S.2d 1022, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17043, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mallwitz-v-state-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack