Mason v. Perrotta
| Decision Date | 15 May 1973 |
| Citation | 343 N.Y.S.2d 748,41 A.D.2d 916 |
| Parties | Application of William MASON, Petitioner, v. Fioravante G. PERROTTA, as Finance Administrator of the City of New York, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Victor J. Herwitz, New York City, for petitioner.
B. Rothman, New York City, for respondent.
Before STEVENS, P.J., and MARKEWICH, MURPHY, STEUER and CAPOZZOLI, JJ.
Determination of respondent Finance Administrator, dated March 14, 1969, unanimously modified, on the law, to direct payment to petitioner of his salary for the period beginning 30 days after his suspension and ending with the date of his dismissal, less outside earnings if any, and otherwise confirmed without costs and without disbursements.
Petitioner was suspended without pay on December 6, 1968, and dismissed from the service, following a hearing on charges, on March 14, 1969. We find no error in the proceeding. However, Civil Service Law section 75, subdivision 3, limits the period of suspension without pay to 30 days. Petitioner is consequently entitled to back pay for the period indicated, less any earnings that he might have had during the period (Matter of Amkraut v. Hults, 21 A.D.2d 260, 250 N.Y.S.2d 171, affd. 15 N.Y.2d 627, 255 N.Y.S.2d 672, 203 N.E.2d 923; Moquin v. Lowery, 35 A.D.2d 661, 314 N.Y.S.2d 474).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sinicropi v. Bennett
...Lytle v. Christian, 47 A.D.2d 824, 365 N.Y.S.2d 865; Matter of Stein v. Murphy, 44 A.D.2d 796, 355 N.Y.S.2d 133; Matter of Mason v. Perrotta, 41 A.D.2d 916, 343 N.Y.S.2d 748; Moquin v. Lowery, 35 A.D.2d 661, 314 N.Y.S.2d 474; Matter of Amkraut v. Hults, 21 A.D.2d 260, 250 N.Y.S.2d 171, affd......
-
Toro v. Malcolm
...is entitled to receive his salary from the date of suspension to discharge, less 30 days' pay. (See, e. g., Matter of Mason v. Perrotta, 41 A.D.2d 916, 343 N.Y.S.2d 748.) Thus, notwithstanding an eventual finding of misconduct, the officer would be entitled to receive back pay for a period ......
-
Hilf v. New York City Housing Authority
...and imposition of penalty, if any, and not merely until the disciplinary hearing commences. Lewis, supra; Mason v. Perrotta, 41 A.D.2d 916, 343 N.Y.S.2d 748 (1st Dep't 1973). The only exception to entitlement under section 75(3) is where the employee himself is responsible for a delay in th......
-
Thomas v. City of Schenectady
...42 N.Y.2d 162, 397 N.Y.S.2d 608, 366 N.E.2d 268), less 12 days' pay which he waived and any outside earnings (see, Mason v. Perrotta, 41 A.D.2d 916, 343 N.Y.S.2d 748). Determination modified, without costs, by remitting the matter to respondents for computation of the back pay owed to petit......