Testa v. Valenza

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Testa v. Valenza

133 A.D.2d 540, 519 N.Y.S.2d 1012, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50039

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

DecidedSeptember 30, 1987

StatusPublished

This text of 133 A.D.2d 540 (Testa v. Valenza) 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

Testa v. Valenza, 133 A.D.2d 540, 519 N.Y.S.2d 1012, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50039 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

Petition unanimously dismissed on the law without costs. Memorandum: This court lacks jurisdiction to review petitioner’s termination as a county attorney because, as an exempt employee, he had no right to a hearing (Civil Service Law § 75). Petitioner’s attempt to challenge his change in status from a classified to an exempt position, which occurred in May 1985, is time barred (CPLR 217). Petitioner was afforded a hearing in the event it was later determined that he was entitled to a name-clearing hearing (see, Board of Regents v Roth, 408 US 564). Since petitioner failed to establish that his employer publicly disseminated the charges against petitioner, he was not entitled to a name-clearing hearing (Matter of Lentlie v Egan, 61 NY2d 874, 876; Matter of Lyles v Ravitch, 101 AD2d 862, 863). Were we to reach the merits of the petition, we would find that there is substantial evidence to support the determination dismissing the petition. (Article 78 proceeding transferred by order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Curran, J.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Denman, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

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

Petition unanimously dismissed on the law without costs. Memorandum: This court lacks jurisdiction to review petitioner’s termination as a county attorney because, as an exempt employee, he had no right to a hearing (Civil Service Law § 75). Petitioner’s attempt to challenge his change in status from a classified to an exempt position, which occurred in May 1985, is time barred (CPLR 217). Petitioner was afforded a hearing in the event it was later determined that he was entitled to a name-clearing hearing (see, Board of Regents v Roth, 408 US 564). Since petitioner failed to establish that his employer publicly disseminated the charges against petitioner, he was not entitled to a name-clearing hearing (Matter of Lentlie v Egan, 61 NY2d 874, 876; Matter of Lyles v Ravitch, 101 AD2d 862, 863). Were we to reach the merits of the petition, we would find that there is substantial evidence to support the determination dismissing the petition. (Article 78 proceeding transferred by order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Curran, J.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Denman, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 A.D.2d 540, 519 N.Y.S.2d 1012, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50039, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/testa-v-valenza-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack