Matter of Muce v. City of N.Y. Civ. Serv. Commission

2025 NY Slip Op 06655

• Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
• Decided: December 2, 2025
• Docket: Index No. 818230/23; Appeal No. 5260; Case No. 2024-05258
• Status: Published

Opinion

Matter of Muce v City of N.Y. Civ. Serv. Commission (2025 NY Slip Op 06655)

Matter of Muce v City of N.Y. Civ. Serv. Commission

2025 NY Slip Op 06655

Decided on December 02, 2025

Appellate Division, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided and Entered: December 02, 2025
Before: Renwick, P.J., Scarpulla, Kapnick, Mendez, O'Neill Levy, JJ.

Index No. 818230/23|Appeal No. 5260|Case No. 2024-05258|

[*1]In the Matter of Salvatore Muce, Petitioner-Appellant,

v

The City of New York Civil Service Commission, et al., Respondents-Respondents.

Gil V. Perez, New York, for appellant.

Muriel Goode-Trufant, Corporation Counsel, New York (Hannah J. Sarokin counsel), for respondents.

Judgment (denominated an order), Supreme Court, Bronx County (Andrew J. Cohen, J.), entered on or about July 18, 2024, which denied the petition to annul respondents' determination, dated July 14, 2023, terminating petitioner's employment as a plumber with respondent Mario Eugenio de Hostos Community College (Hostos), and granting respondents' cross-motion to dismiss the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the cross-motion denied, petition reinstated, and the matter remanded to Supreme Court for further proceedings.

As an initial matter, the article 78 petition is timely because it was filed on November 14, 2023, or within four months of the final determination terminating petitioner's employment (CPLR 217; see Matter of Farca v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y., 220 AD3d 567, 567 [1st Dept 2023], lv denied 41 NY3d 909 [2024]).

Respondents sought to dismiss this article 78 petition at the pre-answer stage on the ground that the petition fails to state a cause of action. Supreme Court should have denied respondents' cross-motion as petitioner provides a factual predicate for his claim.

 THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: December 2, 2025