Miller v. County of Nassau

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Miller v. County of Nassau

297 A.D.2d 344, 746 N.Y.2d 398, 746 N.Y.S.2d 398, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7977

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

DecidedAugust 19, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 297 A.D.2d 344 (Miller v. County of Nassau) 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

Miller v. County of Nassau, 297 A.D.2d 344, 746 N.Y.2d 398, 746 N.Y.S.2d 398, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7977 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

[345]*345Contrary to the petitioners’ contention, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the respondents’ motion which was to dismiss the proceeding. The petitioners may not seek judicial review of the respondents’ placement of them on a lower salary line because they failed to exhaust their administrative remedies under the parties’ collective bargaining agreement (see Young Men’s Christian Assn. v Rochester Pure Waters Dist., 37 NY2d 371, 375; Kropp v Incorporated Vil. of Freeport, 277 AD2d 289; Albala v County of Nassau, 270 AD2d 482). To the extent that the petitioners’ claims fall outside of the scope of the collective bargaining agreement, the Supreme Court correctly concluded that this proceeding may not be maintained since the petitioners failed to serve the required notice of claim (see Picciano v Nassau County Civ. Serv. Commn., 290 AD2d 164). Feuerstein, J.P., Krausman, Luciano and Crane, JJ., concur.

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

[345]*345Contrary to the petitioners’ contention, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the respondents’ motion which was to dismiss the proceeding. The petitioners may not seek judicial review of the respondents’ placement of them on a lower salary line because they failed to exhaust their administrative remedies under the parties’ collective bargaining agreement (see Young Men’s Christian Assn. v Rochester Pure Waters Dist., 37 NY2d 371, 375; Kropp v Incorporated Vil. of Freeport, 277 AD2d 289; Albala v County of Nassau, 270 AD2d 482). To the extent that the petitioners’ claims fall outside of the scope of the collective bargaining agreement, the Supreme Court correctly concluded that this proceeding may not be maintained since the petitioners failed to serve the required notice of claim (see Picciano v Nassau County Civ. Serv. Commn., 290 AD2d 164). Feuerstein, J.P., Krausman, Luciano and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

297 A.D.2d 344, 746 N.Y.2d 398, 746 N.Y.S.2d 398, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7977, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-county-of-nassau-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack