Home/New York Court of Appeals/Matter of Pelaez v. Waterfront Comm'n of New York Harbor

Matter of Pelaez v. Waterfront Comm'n of New York Harbor

402 N.E.2d 120, 48 N.Y.2d 1021, 425 N.Y.S.2d 781, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2070
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedJanuary 15, 1980
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 402 N.E.2d 120 (Matter of Pelaez v. Waterfront Comm'n of New York Harbor) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Matter of Pelaez v. Waterfront Comm'n of New York Harbor, 402 N.E.2d 120, 48 N.Y.2d 1021, 425 N.Y.S.2d 781, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2070 (N.Y. 1980).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order appealed from should be reversed and the matter remitted for a determination of the issue raised by the article 78 proceeding.

The Appellate Division erred in concluding that the order of Special Term, which directed that petitioner’s suspension should be one with pay until the completion of the disciplinary hearing on the charges against him, was nonfinal. The petition was one aimed only at challenging the payless suspen *1023 sion. Special Term, having ordered petitioner to be paid during the suspension, resolved the entire proceeding and no action other than the purely ministerial one involved in restoring petitioner to the payroll remained to be taken by the commission.

Nor does the fact that the disciplinary hearing was still pending before the commission at the time render the order nonfinal (see, e.g., Matter of Board of Educ. v Nyquist, 48 NY2d 97; Matter of Jerry v Board of Educ., 35 NY2d 534; Cohen and Karger, Powers of the New York Court of Appeals, § 31, pp 127-128). In this regard, we note that any challenge to the outcome of the hearings would have to be brought by way of an independent article 78 proceeding (cf. Matter of Sofair v State Univ. of N. Y. Upstate Med. Center Coll. of Medicine, 44 NY2d 475, 479).

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.

Order reversed, with costs, and the matter remitted to the Appellate Division, Second Department, for further proceedings in accordance with the memorandum herein.

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

Related

Garcia v. New York City Department of Health & Mental Hygiene
144 A.D.3d 59 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Eastern Pork Products Co. v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal
210 A.D.2d 38 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
M & M Partnership v. Sweenor
210 A.D.2d 575 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Board of Education v. Ambach
84 A.D.2d 55 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1981)
Plattsburgh Publishing Co. v. Dashnaw
83 A.D.2d 980 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1981)
Pelaez v. Waterfront Commission
77 A.D.2d 947 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
402 N.E.2d 120, 48 N.Y.2d 1021, 425 N.Y.S.2d 781, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2070, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-pelaez-v-waterfront-commn-of-new-york-harbor-ny-1980.