Marsh v. Krantz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Marsh v. Krantz

237 A.D.2d 134, 655 N.Y.S.2d 348, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2195

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

DecidedMarch 6, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 237 A.D.2d 134 (Marsh v. Krantz) 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

Marsh v. Krantz, 237 A.D.2d 134, 655 N.Y.S.2d 348, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2195 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Phyllis Gangel-Jacob, J.), entered October 25, 1995, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondent’s denial of petitioner’s application for appointment as a Special Patrolman, granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In denying petitioner’s application for appointment as a Special Patrolman, respondents clearly had a statutory basis to consider petitioner’s prior arrest (see, Administrative Code of City of NY § 14-106; 38 RCNY 13-01 [d], [e]). Thus, as a matter of law, it cannot be said that no valid ground existed for respondents’ denial of the license (see, Matter of Barton Trucking Corp. v O’Connell, 7 NY2d 299, 308; Matter of Berger v Leach, 103 AD2d 1018). Nor, upon the denial of his application, did petitioner have a due process right to an evidentiary hearing (see, Matter of St. Oharra v Colucci, 67 AD2d 1104), or a presently assertable property interest sufficient to warrant such a hearing (compare, Matter of Walter v State Univ. of N. Y., 59 AD2d 813). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Phyllis Gangel-Jacob, J.), entered October 25, 1995, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondent’s denial of petitioner’s application for appointment as a Special Patrolman, granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In denying petitioner’s application for appointment as a Special Patrolman, respondents clearly had a statutory basis to consider petitioner’s prior arrest (see, Administrative Code of City of NY § 14-106; 38 RCNY 13-01 [d], [e]). Thus, as a matter of law, it cannot be said that no valid ground existed for respondents’ denial of the license (see, Matter of Barton Trucking Corp. v O’Connell, 7 NY2d 299, 308; Matter of Berger v Leach, 103 AD2d 1018). Nor, upon the denial of his application, did petitioner have a due process right to an evidentiary hearing (see, Matter of St. Oharra v Colucci, 67 AD2d 1104), or a presently assertable property interest sufficient to warrant such a hearing (compare, Matter of Walter v State Univ. of N. Y., 59 AD2d 813). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

237 A.D.2d 134, 655 N.Y.S.2d 348, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2195, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marsh-v-krantz-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack