Sigman v. Human Resources Administration

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sigman v. Human Resources Administration

227 A.D.2d 218, 642 N.Y.S.2d 269, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5164

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

DecidedMay 14, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 227 A.D.2d 218 (Sigman v. Human Resources Administration) 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

Sigman v. Human Resources Administration, 227 A.D.2d 218, 642 N.Y.S.2d 269, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5164 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered February 23, 1995, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondent’s denial of petitioner’s request for reinstatement as respondent’s employee, granted respondent’s cross motion to dismiss the petition for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[219]*219The petition, which seeks to avoid petitioner’s resignation on the ground that it was the product of mental illness, was properly dismissed in the absence of allegations describing the nature and extent of the illness and showing that it so impaired petitioner’s cognitive process as to make him incapable of understanding the nature and consequences of his actions when he resigned, and also showing that respondent was aware of petitioner’s condition at the time of the resignation (see, Ortelere v Teachers’ Retirement Bd., 25 NY2d 196, 205-206; Blatt v Manhattan Med. Group, 131 AD2d 48, 50). Concur — Wallach, J. P., Ross, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered February 23, 1995, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondent’s denial of petitioner’s request for reinstatement as respondent’s employee, granted respondent’s cross motion to dismiss the petition for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[219]*219The petition, which seeks to avoid petitioner’s resignation on the ground that it was the product of mental illness, was properly dismissed in the absence of allegations describing the nature and extent of the illness and showing that it so impaired petitioner’s cognitive process as to make him incapable of understanding the nature and consequences of his actions when he resigned, and also showing that respondent was aware of petitioner’s condition at the time of the resignation (see, Ortelere v Teachers’ Retirement Bd., 25 NY2d 196, 205-206; Blatt v Manhattan Med. Group, 131 AD2d 48, 50). Concur — Wallach, J. P., Ross, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

227 A.D.2d 218, 642 N.Y.S.2d 269, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5164, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sigman-v-human-resources-administration-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack