Scherbyn v. Wayne-Finger Lakes Board of Cooperative Educational Services

162 A.D.2d 967, 557 N.Y.S.2d 192, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9706
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 22, 1990
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 162 A.D.2d 967 (Scherbyn v. Wayne-Finger Lakes Board of Cooperative Educational Services) 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
Scherbyn v. Wayne-Finger Lakes Board of Cooperative Educational Services, 162 A.D.2d 967, 557 N.Y.S.2d 192, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9706 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Opinion

Order and judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: We affirm for the reasons stated in the decision of Supreme Court (Henry, Jr., J.). We add only that the rule that "[¡Judicial review of an administrative determination is limited to the grounds invoked by the agency” (Matter of Aronsky v Board of Educ., 75 NY2d 997, 1000) is not applicable here. This action is in the nature of mandamus to compel petitioner’s reinstatement to a [968]*968position from which she had taken a leave of absence more than one year previously (see, 19 NY Jur 2d, Civil Servants and Other Public Officers and Employees, § 402); it is not a proceeding in the nature of certiorari to review a quasi-judicial determination of a quasi-judicial body following a hearing. The burden of proof in this action in the nature of mandamus is upon petitioner to show that she was entitled to reinstatement. In the answers of both the County Personnel Officer and the employer, it is alleged that petitioner was not entitled to reinstatement because, by operation of the civil service rules, she had resigned from her position. Supreme Court properly decided the issues raised by the answer. Moreover, this proceeding to compel petitioner’s reinstatement is not properly directed against the County Personnel Officer because she has no power of appointment and it would be impossible for her to comply with any order directing petitioner’s reinstatement (see, Matter of McCraw v Finegan, 243 App Div 778). (Appeal from order and judgment of Supreme Court, Ontario County, Henry, Jr., J.—art 78.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Boomer, Green and Balio, JJ.

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

Related

Harvey v. Hynes
174 Misc. 2d 174 (New York Supreme Court, 1997)
Scherbyn v. Wayne-Finger Lakes Board of Cooperative Educational Services
573 N.E.2d 562 (New York Court of Appeals, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
162 A.D.2d 967, 557 N.Y.S.2d 192, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9706, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scherbyn-v-wayne-finger-lakes-board-of-cooperative-educational-services-nyappdiv-1990.