Moogan v. New York State Department of Health

8 A.D.3d 68, 778 N.Y.S.2d 161, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7947
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 10, 2004
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 8 A.D.3d 68 (Moogan v. New York State Department of Health) 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
Moogan v. New York State Department of Health, 8 A.D.3d 68, 778 N.Y.S.2d 161, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7947 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard F. Braun, J.), entered December 4, 2002, which denied the petition as against respondent Fire Department and its Commissioner, and incorporated by reference an earlier dismissal of the proceeding as against respondent Department of Health and its Executive Deputy Commissioner, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The earlier dismissal against the Department of Health was on the ground that petitioner had failed to include the legend “urgent legal mail” on the certified mail envelope sent to that [69]*69Department, as required by CPLR 307 (2). The statute expressly states that such service “shall not be effective” without this legend, clearly establishing it as a jurisdictional requirement (see Alexander, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C307:2, C307:3). That the Health Department may have received actual notice by other means is of no moment (Macchia v Russo, 67 NY2d 592 [1986]).

Petitioner was not entitled to a hearing pursuant to Civil Service Law § 75, or as a matter of state or federal constitutional due process, before he could be terminated based on the suspension of his EMT certification. There is no factual issue to be determined at a hearing, in light of the fact that petitioner’s EMT certification was unquestionably suspended by the Health Department, and that such certification is a requirement for employment with the Fire Department (see Matter of Naliboff v Davis, 133 AD2d 632 [1987], lv denied 71 NY2d 805 [1988]).

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

Related

Trowbridge v. City Univ. of N.Y.
2024 NY Slip Op 33434(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)
Matter of O'Reilly v. Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y.
2023 NY Slip Op 00957 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
Mathew v. Coler Goldwater Specialty Hospital & Nursing Facility
103 A.D.3d 567 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Carr v. New York State Department of Transportation
70 A.D.3d 1110 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Lowney v. New York State Division of Human Rights
68 A.D.3d 551 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Stolzman v. New York State Department of Transportation
68 A.D.3d 1331 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
8 A.D.3d 68, 778 N.Y.S.2d 161, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7947, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moogan-v-new-york-state-department-of-health-nyappdiv-2004.