Ziehm v. City of Buffalo

New York Court of Appeals

Ziehm v. City of Buffalo

450 N.E.2d 241, 59 N.Y.2d 757, 463 N.Y.S.2d 435, 1983 N.Y. LEXIS 3105

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 11, 1983

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 450 N.E.2d 241 (Ziehm v. City of Buffalo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ziehm v. City of Buffalo, 450 N.E.2d 241, 59 N.Y.2d 757, 463 N.Y.S.2d 435, 1983 N.Y. LEXIS 3105 (N.Y. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

The respondent commissioner concluded (1) that petitioner either was a resident of Buffalo on January 1,1977, or else was willfully concealing her nonresidence and (2) that under section 4 of chapter 1 of the Buffalo City Ordinances, as modified by the labor agreement, either ground would sustain petitioner’s dismissal following her change of residence to Hamburg, New York, in 1979. There was substantial evidence in the record supporting either prong of the first conclusion and the testimony of the vice-president of petitioner’s union supplied a rational basis for the second.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg, Meyer and Simons concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [g]), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

The respondent commissioner concluded (1) that petitioner either was a resident of Buffalo on January 1,1977, or else was willfully concealing her nonresidence and (2) that under section 4 of chapter 1 of the Buffalo City Ordinances, as modified by the labor agreement, either ground would sustain petitioner’s dismissal following her change of residence to Hamburg, New York, in 1979. There was substantial evidence in the record supporting either prong of the first conclusion and the testimony of the vice-president of petitioner’s union supplied a rational basis for the second.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg, Meyer and Simons concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [g]), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

450 N.E.2d 241, 59 N.Y.2d 757, 463 N.Y.S.2d 435, 1983 N.Y. LEXIS 3105, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ziehm-v-city-of-buffalo-ny-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack