Santella v. Hoberman
| Decision Date | 08 January 1968 |
| Citation | 29 A.D.2d 655,286 N.Y.S.2d 647 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Dominick SANTELLA, Respondent, v. Solomon HOBERMAN et al., Commissioners of the City Civil Service Commission of the City of New York, and the New York City Transit Authority, Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Salvator Milazzo, New York City, for petitioner-respondent.
J. Lee Rankin, Corp. Counsel, for appellant Commissioners; Stanley Buchsbaum, Alfred Weinstein, New York City, of counsel.
Sidney Brandes, Brooklyn, for appellant, New York City Transit Authority; Helen R. Cassidy and John A. Murray, Brooklyn, of counsel.
Before BELDOCK, P.J., and BRENNAN, HOPKINS, MUNDER and MARTUSCELLO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review the respondent Authority's dismissal of petitioner from his position of 'Maintainer's Helper (A)' and the respondent Commission's affirmance of the dismissal, order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated March 23, 1967, which denied the motion of the Authority, in which the Commission joined, to dismiss the proceeding, affirmed, without costs. The time within which appellants may answer the petition is extended until 10 days after service of the order to be entered hereon, with notice of entry.
Although it is provided in subdivision 3 of section 76 of the Civil Service Law that a determination on appeal of an allegedly aggrieved employee shall not be subject to court review, there remains for court determination the question of a disposition by the Commission which is 'purely arbitrary' (Matter of Bd. of Educ. of City of N.Y. v. Allen, 6 N.Y.2d 127, 136, 188 N.Y.S.2d 515, 520, 160 N.E.2d 60, 64; Matter of Taylor v. New York City Tr. Auth., 25 A.D.2d 682, 269 N.Y.S.2d 75, affd. 19 N.Y.2d 724, 279 N.Y.S.2d 181, 225 N.E.2d 886). The petition on its face sufficiently alleges arbitrariness.
Inasmuch as petitioner sought review herein of the determination of the Commission within fourt months after it was rendered, the proceeding is timely within the purview of CPLR 217.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Antinore v. State
...basis for the commission's decision. See, Barbarito v. Robert Moses, et al., 31 A.D.2d 898, 297 N.Y.S.2d 831; Santella v. Hoberman, et al., 29 A.D.2d 655, 286 N.Y.S.2d 647; Taylor v. New York City Transit Authority, 25 A.D.2d 682, 269 N.Y.S.2d 75 and Trotman v. Hoberman, et al., 56 Misc.2d ......
-
Short v. Nassau County Civil Service Commission
...den. 22 N.Y.2d 643, 292 N.Y.S.2d 1028, 239 N.E.2d 566 cert. den. 393 U.S. 1035, 89 S.Ct. 652, 21 L.Ed.2d 580; Matter of Santella v. Hoberman, 29 A.D.2d 655, 286 N.Y.S.2d 647; Matter of Pauling v. Smith, 46 A.D.2d 759, 361 N.Y.S.2d We have reviewed the entire record and conclude that the com......
-
Taylor v. New York City Transit Authority
...See, e. g., Trotman v. Hoberman, 56 Misc.2d 915, 290 N.Y.S.2d 680 (Sup.Ct., Spec.Term, N.Y.Co.1968); Santella v. Hoberman, 29 A.D.2d 655, 286 N.Y.S.2d 647 (2d Dep't 1968). The rationale underlying the assertion of judicial supervision over the proceedings of state agencies in such cases is ......
-
Rothstein v. CIVIL SERV. COM'N OF CITY OF NEW YORK
...See, e. g., Trotman v. Hoberman, 56 Misc.2d 915, 290 N.Y.S.2d 680 (Sup.Ct., Spec. Term, N.Y.Co.1968); Santella v. Hoberman, 29 A.D.2d 655, 286 N.Y.S.2d 647 (2d Dep't 1968). The rationale underlying the assertion of judicial supervision over the proceedings of state agencies in such cases is......