McCord v. Board of Trustees

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McCord v. Board of Trustees

225 A.D.2d 555, 639 N.Y.2d 85, 639 N.Y.S.2d 85, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1910

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

DecidedMarch 4, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 225 A.D.2d 555 (McCord v. Board of Trustees) 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

McCord v. Board of Trustees, 225 A.D.2d 555, 639 N.Y.2d 85, 639 N.Y.S.2d 85, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1910 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

The Supreme Court properly concluded that the petition was not barred by the applicable Statute of Limitations (see, Civil Service Law § 76 [1]; CPLR 217; Matter of Owen v Town Bd., 94 AD2d 768; cf., Matter of Smith v Village of Pawling, 215 AD2d 667). However, the Supreme Court erred in annulling the Board’s determination because contrary to the court’s conclusion, Village Law § 8-804 only requires "five days’ notice and an opportunity to be heard” with regard to the hearing on the charges, and not with regard to the Board’s final determination. In any event, prior to the Board’s final determination, the petitioner received a copy of the Hearing Officer’s findings and recommendations and was given an opportunity to controvert, in writing, the Hearing Officer’s findings and conclusions (see generally, Matter of Sorrentino v State Liq. Auth., 10 NY2d 143; Matter of Fogel v Board of Educ., 48 AD2d 925). Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

The Supreme Court properly concluded that the petition was not barred by the applicable Statute of Limitations (see, Civil Service Law § 76 [1]; CPLR 217; Matter of Owen v Town Bd., 94 AD2d 768; cf., Matter of Smith v Village of Pawling, 215 AD2d 667). However, the Supreme Court erred in annulling the Board’s determination because contrary to the court’s conclusion, Village Law § 8-804 only requires "five days’ notice and an opportunity to be heard” with regard to the hearing on the charges, and not with regard to the Board’s final determination. In any event, prior to the Board’s final determination, the petitioner received a copy of the Hearing Officer’s findings and recommendations and was given an opportunity to controvert, in writing, the Hearing Officer’s findings and conclusions (see generally, Matter of Sorrentino v State Liq. Auth., 10 NY2d 143; Matter of Fogel v Board of Educ., 48 AD2d 925). Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 A.D.2d 555, 639 N.Y.2d 85, 639 N.Y.S.2d 85, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1910, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccord-v-board-of-trustees-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack