Mapp v. Carnevale

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mapp v. Carnevale

250 A.D.2d 354, 672 N.Y.S.2d 686, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5245

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

DecidedMay 5, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 250 A.D.2d 354 (Mapp v. Carnevale) 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

Mapp v. Carnevale, 250 A.D.2d 354, 672 N.Y.S.2d 686, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5245 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Marylin Diamond, J.), entered on or about February 26, 1997, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with Supreme Court that petitioner’s challenge to the reclassification of his position with the Queens County District Attorney’s office from “non-confidential” to “confidential” is time-barred. Petitioner was aggrieved and the applicable four-month statutory period (see, CPLR 217) began to run, at the latest, on May 18, 1988, when the subject reclassification was filed with the Secretary of State. Clearly, the present proceeding, commenced on or about April 29, 1996, was not timely.

Since petitioner’s claim respecting the propriety of his reclassification is not reviewable, his claim, contingent upon the success of his challenge to his reclassification, that he was entitled to a pretermination hearing must fail; as a confidential employee, petitioner had no right to such a hearing (see, Civil Service Law § 75 [1] [c]) Nor is petitioner entitled to a “name clearing hearing” since he has failed to demonstrate public dissemination of a defamatory charge (see, Matter of Ortiz v Ward, 155 AD2d 245). Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Wallach, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Marylin Diamond, J.), entered on or about February 26, 1997, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with Supreme Court that petitioner’s challenge to the reclassification of his position with the Queens County District Attorney’s office from “non-confidential” to “confidential” is time-barred. Petitioner was aggrieved and the applicable four-month statutory period (see, CPLR 217) began to run, at the latest, on May 18, 1988, when the subject reclassification was filed with the Secretary of State. Clearly, the present proceeding, commenced on or about April 29, 1996, was not timely.

Since petitioner’s claim respecting the propriety of his reclassification is not reviewable, his claim, contingent upon the success of his challenge to his reclassification, that he was entitled to a pretermination hearing must fail; as a confidential employee, petitioner had no right to such a hearing (see, Civil Service Law § 75 [1] [c]) Nor is petitioner entitled to a “name clearing hearing” since he has failed to demonstrate public dissemination of a defamatory charge (see, Matter of Ortiz v Ward, 155 AD2d 245). Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Wallach, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 A.D.2d 354, 672 N.Y.S.2d 686, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5245, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mapp-v-carnevale-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack