Vespucci v. Prendergast

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Vespucci v. Prendergast

303 A.D.2d 685, 756 N.Y.S.2d 791

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

DecidedMarch 24, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 303 A.D.2d 685 (Vespucci v. Prendergast) 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

Vespucci v. Prendergast, 303 A.D.2d 685, 756 N.Y.S.2d 791 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondents, dated February 15, 2002, which disqualified the petitioner from eligibility for the position of police officer for the County of Rockland, the petitioner appeals (1) from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (O’Rourke, J.), dated March 22, 2002, which, in effect, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding, and (2), as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the same court, dated April 30, 2002, as, upon, in effect, granting reargument, adhered to the original determination.

Ordered that the appeal from the judgment is dismissed, as the judgment was superseded by the order made upon reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is'further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondents.

The Supreme Court properly concluded that the respondents’ determination to disqualify the petitioner from eligibility for the position of police officer was neither arbitrary nor capricious (see CPLR 7803 [3]; Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 231 [1974]; Matter of Sherman v Leonard, 197 AD2d 581 [1993]). Moreover, upon the petitioner’s motion to reargue, the Supreme Court correctly adhered to its original determination (see CPLR 2221 [d]).

The petitioner’s claim that he was “forbidden” to file a reply to the respondents’ answer is dehors the record. Santucci, J.P., Feuerstein, Smith and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondents, dated February 15, 2002, which disqualified the petitioner from eligibility for the position of police officer for the County of Rockland, the petitioner appeals (1) from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (O’Rourke, J.), dated March 22, 2002, which, in effect, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding, and (2), as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the same court, dated April 30, 2002, as, upon, in effect, granting reargument, adhered to the original determination.