Skrypek v. Bennett

New York Court of Appeals

Skrypek v. Bennett

861 N.E.2d 812, 7 N.Y.3d 919

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 21, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 861 N.E.2d 812 (Skrypek v. Bennett) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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]*920of 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