WARREN, DANIEL T. v. BIELECKI, ROBERT J.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

WARREN, DANIEL T. v. BIELECKI, ROBERT J.

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

DecidedFebruary 10, 2012

DocketOP 11-00539

StatusPublished

This text of WARREN, DANIEL T. v. BIELECKI, ROBERT J. (WARREN, DANIEL T. v. BIELECKI, ROBERT J.) 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

WARREN, DANIEL T. v. BIELECKI, ROBERT J., (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

179 OP 11-00539 PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, CARNI, AND LINDLEY, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF DANIEL T. WARREN, PETITIONER,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ROBERT J. BIELECKI, COMPTROLLER, TOWN OF WEST SENECA AND WALLACE C. PIOTROWSKI, BUDGET OFFICER AND SUPERVISOR, TOWN OF WEST SENECA, RESPONDENTS.

DANIEL T. WARREN, PETITIONER PRO SE.

PAUL M. MICHALEK, JR., WEST SENECA, FOR RESPONDENT ROBERT J. BIELECKI, COMPTROLLER, TOWN OF WEST SENECA.

PHILLIPS LYTLE LLP, BUFFALO (TIMOTHY W. HOOVER OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT WALLACE C. PIOTROWSKI, BUDGET OFFICER AND SUPERVISOR, TOWN OF WEST SENECA.

Proceeding pursuant to Public Officers Law § 36 (commenced in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department) for the removal of respondents from public office.

It is hereby ORDERED that said petition is unanimously dismissed without costs as moot.

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this proceeding to remove respondents from public office pursuant to Public Officers Law § 36. Inasmuch as respondents no longer hold public office, the proceeding is moot (see Matter of Copp v Lankford, 283 AD2d 980; Matter of McCoach v Maine, 247 AD2d 784; Matter of DeFalco v Doetsch, 208 AD2d 1047, 1048). In any event, we note that, based on the findings of fact made by the Referee appointed by this Court, there would be insufficient grounds upon which to remove either respondent from office pursuant to Public Officers Law § 36, which requires evidence of “self-dealing, corrupt activities, conflict of interest, moral turpitude, intentional wrongdoing or violation of a public trust” (Matter of Jones v Filkins, 238 AD2d 954 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see also Matter of Morin v Gallagher, 221 AD2d 765).

Entered: February 10, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court

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

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

179 OP 11-00539 PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, CARNI, AND LINDLEY, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF DANIEL T. WARREN, PETITIONER,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ROBERT J. BIELECKI, COMPTROLLER, TOWN OF WEST SENECA AND WALLACE C. PIOTROWSKI, BUDGET OFFICER AND SUPERVISOR, TOWN OF WEST SENECA, RESPONDENTS.

DANIEL T. WARREN, PETITIONER PRO SE.

PAUL M. MICHALEK, JR., WEST SENECA, FOR RESPONDENT ROBERT J. BIELECKI, COMPTROLLER, TOWN OF WEST SENECA.

PHILLIPS LYTLE LLP, BUFFALO (TIMOTHY W. HOOVER OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT WALLACE C. PIOTROWSKI, BUDGET OFFICER AND SUPERVISOR, TOWN OF WEST SENECA.

Proceeding pursuant to Public Officers Law § 36 (commenced in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department) for the removal of respondents from public office.

It is hereby ORDERED that said petition is unanimously dismissed without costs as moot.

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this proceeding to remove respondents from public office pursuant to Public Officers Law § 36. Inasmuch as respondents no longer hold public office, the proceeding is moot (see Matter of Copp v Lankford, 283 AD2d 980; Matter of McCoach v Maine, 247 AD2d 784; Matter of DeFalco v Doetsch, 208 AD2d 1047, 1048). In any event, we note that, based on the findings of fact made by the Referee appointed by this Court, there would be insufficient grounds upon which to remove either respondent from office pursuant to Public Officers Law § 36, which requires evidence of “self-dealing, corrupt activities, conflict of interest, moral turpitude, intentional wrongdoing or violation of a public trust” (Matter of Jones v Filkins, 238 AD2d 954 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see also Matter of Morin v Gallagher, 221 AD2d 765).

Entered: February 10, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

WARREN, DANIEL T. v. BIELECKI, ROBERT J., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/warren-daniel-t-v-bielecki-robert-j-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack