Wilson v. Abate

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wilson v. Abate

211 A.D.2d 516, 621 N.Y.S.2d 566

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

DecidedJanuary 19, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 211 A.D.2d 516 (Wilson v. Abate) 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

Wilson v. Abate, 211 A.D.2d 516, 621 N.Y.S.2d 566 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment (denominated an order), Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered on or about August 23, 1993, which granted respondent’s motion to dismiss petitioner’s application pursuant to CPLR article 78 seeking to extend the expiration date of an eligible list for the position of Captain in the Department of Correction, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

As petitioner has not challenged the constitutionality of the list, the list need not be extended merely due to the commencement of the litigation within the list’s lifetime (Matter of Deas v Levitt, 73 NY2d 525, cert denied 493 US 933). We agree with the IAS Court that respondents’ refusal to exercise their discretion to extend the list (Matter of DiNatale v Levitt, 76 NY2d 548) was not arbitrary or capricious under the instant circumstances. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Ross, Williams and Tom, JJ.

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

Judgment (denominated an order), Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered on or about August 23, 1993, which granted respondent’s motion to dismiss petitioner’s application pursuant to CPLR article 78 seeking to extend the expiration date of an eligible list for the position of Captain in the Department of Correction, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

As petitioner has not challenged the constitutionality of the list, the list need not be extended merely due to the commencement of the litigation within the list’s lifetime (Matter of Deas v Levitt, 73 NY2d 525, cert denied 493 US 933). We agree with the IAS Court that respondents’ refusal to exercise their discretion to extend the list (Matter of DiNatale v Levitt, 76 NY2d 548) was not arbitrary or capricious under the instant circumstances. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Ross, Williams and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

211 A.D.2d 516, 621 N.Y.S.2d 566, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilson-v-abate-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack