Troy v. Village of Williamsville

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Troy v. Village of Williamsville

213 A.D.2d 1033, 624 N.Y.S.2d 324, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3832

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

DecidedMarch 17, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 213 A.D.2d 1033 (Troy v. Village of Williamsville) 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

Troy v. Village of Williamsville, 213 A.D.2d 1033, 624 N.Y.S.2d 324, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3832 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly dismissed the CPLR article 78 petition. Respondents’ failure to reappoint petitioner as Village Attorney of the Village of Williamsville at the April 4, 1994 organizational meeting did not constitute the "removal” of petitioner from that position (see, Matter of Buehler v Board of Supervisors, 260 NY 268, 270). Petitioner therefore may not avail himself of the protection of Civil Service Law § 75, which pertains only to removal and other disciplinary action (see, Civil Service Law § 75).

The record does not support the contention that the appointment of respondent Kelly as Village Attorney was the result of improper conduct on the part of the Mayor and Board of Trustees. We, therefore, conclude that the appointment of Kelly as Village Attorney was not an illegal or void [1034]*1034act. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Glownia, J.—Article 78.) Present—Denman, P. J., Lawton, Fallon, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly dismissed the CPLR article 78 petition. Respondents’ failure to reappoint petitioner as Village Attorney of the Village of Williamsville at the April 4, 1994 organizational meeting did not constitute the "removal” of petitioner from that position (see, Matter of Buehler v Board of Supervisors, 260 NY 268, 270). Petitioner therefore may not avail himself of the protection of Civil Service Law § 75, which pertains only to removal and other disciplinary action (see, Civil Service Law § 75).

The record does not support the contention that the appointment of respondent Kelly as Village Attorney was the result of improper conduct on the part of the Mayor and Board of Trustees. We, therefore, conclude that the appointment of Kelly as Village Attorney was not an illegal or void [1034]*1034act. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Glownia, J.—Article 78.) Present—Denman, P. J., Lawton, Fallon, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 A.D.2d 1033, 624 N.Y.S.2d 324, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3832, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/troy-v-village-of-williamsville-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack