Warren v. Bielecki

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Warren v. Bielecki

92 A.D.3d 1244, 937 N.Y.2d 922

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

DecidedFebruary 10, 2012

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 92 A.D.3d 1244 (Warren v. Bielecki) 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 v. Bielecki, 92 A.D.3d 1244, 937 N.Y.2d 922 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

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 [2001]; Matter of McCoach v Maine, 247 AD2d 784 [1998]; Matter of DeFalco v Doetsch, 208 AD2d 1047, 1048 [1994]). 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 [1997] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see also Matter of Morin v Gallagher, 221 AD2d 765 [1995]). Present — Centra, J.E, Fahey, Garni and Lindley, JJ.

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

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 [2001]; Matter of McCoach v Maine, 247 AD2d 784 [1998]; Matter of DeFalco v Doetsch, 208 AD2d 1047, 1048 [1994]). 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 [1997] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see also Matter of Morin v Gallagher, 221 AD2d 765 [1995]). Present — Centra, J.E, Fahey, Garni and Lindley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 A.D.3d 1244, 937 N.Y.2d 922, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/warren-v-bielecki-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack