Taylor v. New York Transit Authority
| Decision Date | 02 March 1967 |
| Citation | 225 N.E.2d 886,279 N.Y.S.2d 181,19 N.Y.2d 724 |
| Parties | , 225 N.E.2d 886 Application of Julian C. TAYLOR, Appellant, for a judgment, etc. v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, 25 A.D.2d 682, 269 N.Y.S.2d 75.
Sidney Brandes, Brooklyn (John A. Murray, New York City, and Edward L. Cox, Jr., Brooklyn, of counsel), for respondent New York City Transit Authority.
Proceeding was brought under Article 78 of CPLR to annul a determination of the New York City Transit Authority dismissing the petitioner from position of road car inspector.
There was evidence that petitioner and another were arrested on charges subsequently dismissed, of assault in the third degree and violation of Section 1897 of the Penal Law Consol.Laws, c. 40, dealing with unlawful possession of a weapon, and that on the same day the petitioner was suspended, without pay, from his position with the Transit Authority, and that the Transit Authority subsequently preferred charges of misconduct against the petitioner, based on his alleged violation of one of its rules prohibiting its employees from violating any criminal law or committing any illegal act, on or off duty, and that following a hearing on those charges the hearing officer recommended that they be sustained and that the petitioner be dismissed, and that the report containing such recommendations recited that the Transit Authority had been represented at the hearing by its then General Counsel with another attorney of counsel, and that the then General Counsel was not present at the hearing but was on vacation, and that the then General Counsel was appointed a member of the Transit Authority, which was a three-member body, and that he and the chairman-member approved the recommendations of the hearing officer, and that the third member did not participate in the decision, and that the petitioner received a copy of the hearing officer's report, with a recital thereon that it had been approved by the former General Counsel and the other member who had voted to approve it, and that petitioner then appealed to the Civil Service Commission of the City of New York pursuant to Section 76 of the Civil Service Law, Consol.Laws, c. 7, which permitted such an appeal as an alternative to judicial review but provided that, if such alternative was used, the decision of the Commission was not subject to further review in any c...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Taylor v. New York City Transit Authority
...269 N.Y.S.2d 75, 76 (2d Dep't 1966). This decision was affirmed unanimously without opinion. Taylor v. New York City Transit Authority, 19 N.Y.2d 724, 279 N.Y.S.2d 181, 225 N.E.2d 886 (1967). Review was not sought in the United States Supreme Court. Instead, the present action was institute......
-
Taylor v. New York City Transit Authority
...*" Id. The judgment was unanimously affirmed without opinion by the New York Court of Appeals. Taylor v. New York City Transit Authority, 19 N.Y.2d 724, 279 N.Y.S.2d 181, 225 N.E.2d 886 (1967). Review was not sought in the United States Supreme Court. Instead, the present action was institu......
-
Pauling v. Smith
...by Special Term. (CPLR 7804, subd (g); see Taylor v. N.Y. City Transit Authority, 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.) But even though Special Term has not properly transferred a case to the Appellate Division, the Appellate Division may, a......
-
City Council of Watertown v. Carbone
...decision was 'purely arbitrary' (Matter of Taylor v. N.Y.C. Transit 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; Matter of Hibbert v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth., 28 A.D.2d 1139, 284 N.Y.S.2d 717, app. dsmd. 21 N.Y.2d 880, lv. to app. den. 22 N.Y.2d......