Skrypek v. Bennett

861 N.E.2d 812, 7 N.Y.3d 919
New York Court of Appeals·Decided December 21, 2006·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and the judgment of Supreme Court reinstated.

When both the employer and employee are equally responsible for the delay in a disciplinary hearing, as is the case here, the employee may not properly be considered to have waived his right to back pay (see Matter of Fusco v Griffin, 67 AD2d 827 [4th Dept 1979]). Accordingly, petitioner is entitled to an award [920] of back pay for the period of his prehearing suspension exceeding 30 days.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read, Smith and Pigott concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order reversed, etc.

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

Skrypek v. Bennett, 861 N.E.2d 812, 7 N.Y.3d 919 (N.Y. 2006).

861 N.E.2d 812 (Skrypek v. Bennett) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Matter of Carcone v. City of Utica
2020 NY Slip Op 4103 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Civil Services Employees Ass'n ex rel. Martelli v. Cortland Housing Authority
115 A.D.3d 1080 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Rea v. City of Kingston
110 A.D.3d 1227 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)