Meschino v. Lowery

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Meschino v. Lowery

38 A.D.2d 526, 327 N.Y.S.2d 548, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2761

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

DecidedDecember 9, 1971

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 38 A.D.2d 526 (Meschino v. Lowery) 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

Meschino v. Lowery, 38 A.D.2d 526, 327 N.Y.S.2d 548, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2761 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County, entered April 28, 1971, affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. We agree with Special Term that the proceedings for which we previously remanded to the Trustees (34 A D 2d 255) should be adversary in nature, with an “ opportunity to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses” (Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U. S. 254, 269). However, we hesitate to adopt Special Term’s description of the hearing as “ full dress.” It will suffice for its purposes if carried on within the well-recognized standards of any fair administrative hearing. Concur — McGivern, Markewich and Murphy, JJ.; Stevens, P. J., dissents in part in the following memorandum: I would modify to remand to the Board of Trustees with a direction to reopen the matter for the purpose of receiving such further evidence as either side might wish to present on the issues. In my view neither our prior decision (34 A D 2d 255), nor the ease cited by the majority (Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U. S. 254) mandates a full dress hearing, adversary in nature, in a proceeding of this kind (Matter of Martucci v. Board of Trustees, 18 A D 2d 3). [66 Misc 2d 390.]

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

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County, entered April 28, 1971, affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. We agree with Special Term that the proceedings for which we previously remanded to the Trustees (34 A D 2d 255) should be adversary in nature, with an “ opportunity to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses” (Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U. S. 254, 269). However, we hesitate to adopt Special Term’s description of the hearing as “ full dress.” It will suffice for its purposes if carried on within the well-recognized standards of any fair administrative hearing. Concur — McGivern, Markewich and Murphy, JJ.; Stevens, P. J., dissents in part in the following memorandum: I would modify to remand to the Board of Trustees with a direction to reopen the matter for the purpose of receiving such further evidence as either side might wish to present on the issues. In my view neither our prior decision (34 A D 2d 255), nor the ease cited by the majority (Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U. S. 254) mandates a full dress hearing, adversary in nature, in a proceeding of this kind (Matter of Martucci v. Board of Trustees, 18 A D 2d 3). [66 Misc 2d 390.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A.D.2d 526, 327 N.Y.S.2d 548, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2761, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meschino-v-lowery-nyappdiv-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack