Mukhopadhyay v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mukhopadhyay v. City of New York

296 A.D.2d 363, 745 N.Y.S.2d 424, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7667

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

DecidedJuly 25, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 296 A.D.2d 363 (Mukhopadhyay v. City of New York) 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

Mukhopadhyay v. City of New York, 296 A.D.2d 363, 745 N.Y.S.2d 424, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7667 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered on or about October 31, 2000, which dismissed the petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondents’ determination denying petitioner a managerial pay increase, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record is devoid of any basis for a claim that the challenged determination was arbitrary and capricious (see, Matter of 601 Realty Corp. v City of N.Y. Dept. of Health, 269 AD2d 268). Since petitioner was not demoted, dismissed or otherwise subject to disciplinary action, his claim that he was entitled to a pretermination hearing pursuant to Civil Service Law § 75 (1) is incorrect. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Buckley, Sullivan and Marlow, JJ.

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 (Paula Omansky, J.), entered on or about October 31, 2000, which dismissed the petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondents’ determination denying petitioner a managerial pay increase, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record is devoid of any basis for a claim that the challenged determination was arbitrary and capricious (see, Matter of 601 Realty Corp. v City of N.Y. Dept. of Health, 269 AD2d 268). Since petitioner was not demoted, dismissed or otherwise subject to disciplinary action, his claim that he was entitled to a pretermination hearing pursuant to Civil Service Law § 75 (1) is incorrect. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Buckley, Sullivan and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

296 A.D.2d 363, 745 N.Y.S.2d 424, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7667, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mukhopadhyay-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack