Neal v. Loncar

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Neal v. Loncar

116 A.D.3d 778, 982 N.Y.S.2d 915

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

DecidedApril 9, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 116 A.D.3d 778 (Neal v. Loncar) 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

Neal v. Loncar, 116 A.D.3d 778, 982 N.Y.S.2d 915 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

— Proceeding pursuant to Public Officers Law § 36 to remove the respondent, Clifford Loncar, from public office in the Town of Tuxedo, Orange County.

Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

The misconduct alleged, even if the allegations are accepted as true, does not rise to the level of malfeasance, misconduct, maladministration, or malversation necessary to justify the extreme remedy of removal from public office pursuant to Public Officers Law § 36 (see Matter of Haase v DelVecchio, 90 AD3d 756 [2011]; Matter of Hayes v Ansel-McCabe, 83 AD3d 1180 [2011]; Matter of Montanino v Rowley, 39 AD3d 653, 654 [2007]). Skelos, J.E, Dickerson, Chambers and Miller, JJ., concur.

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

— Proceeding pursuant to Public Officers Law § 36 to remove the respondent, Clifford Loncar, from public office in the Town of Tuxedo, Orange County.

Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

The misconduct alleged, even if the allegations are accepted as true, does not rise to the level of malfeasance, misconduct, maladministration, or malversation necessary to justify the extreme remedy of removal from public office pursuant to Public Officers Law § 36 (see Matter of Haase v DelVecchio, 90 AD3d 756 [2011]; Matter of Hayes v Ansel-McCabe, 83 AD3d 1180 [2011]; Matter of Montanino v Rowley, 39 AD3d 653, 654 [2007]). Skelos, J.E, Dickerson, Chambers and Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 A.D.3d 778, 982 N.Y.S.2d 915, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/neal-v-loncar-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack