Taylor v. New York City Transit Authority
| Decision Date | 28 March 1966 |
| Citation | 25 A.D.2d 682,269 N.Y.S.2d 75 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Julian C. TAYLOR, Petitioner-Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY and Civil Service Commission of the City ofNew York, Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
George J. Robertazzi, Brooklyn, for appellant.
Sidney Brandes, Brooklyn, for respondent Transit Authority. John A. Murray, New York City, of counsel.
Leo A. Larkin, Corp. Counsel, New York City, for respondent Civil Service Comm.; Seymour B. Quel, New York City, of counsel, on the brief of Transit Authority.
Before CHRIST, Acting P.J., and BRENNAN, HILL, HOPKINS and BENJAMIN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the CPLR to review and annul a determination of respondent New York City Transit Authority dismissing petitioner from its employ, petitioner appeals, as limited by his briefs, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered January 13, 1965, as dismissed his petition and confirmed the determination.
Judgment affirmed, insofar as appealed from, without costs.
We agree with the holding at Special Term that petitioner, by appealing from his dismissal to the respondent Civil Service Commission, elected his remedy and was foreclosed from seeking judicial review, since his dismissal was not 'purely arbitrary.' Thus, although we disapprove of the participation of the former counsel to the Transit Authority in the Authority's determination in his role as a Commissioner, we can not disturb the decision of the Civil Service Commission.
We additionally find that petitioner knew, or should have known, at the time of his appeal to the Civil Service Commission, that Commissioner Scannell had taken part as a Member of the Authority in the adoption of the recommendations of the hearing referee. Therefore, in addition to the reason stated by Special Term, we affirm on the grounds of the expiration of the four month Statute of Limitations (CPLR § 217) and laches. (Austin v. Board of Higher Educ. of City of N.Y., 5 N.Y.2d 430, 186 N.Y.S.2d 1, 158 N.E.2d 681.)
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Taylor v. New York City Transit Authority
...we affirm on the grounds of expiration of the four month Statute of Limitations * * * and laches. Taylor v. New York City Transit Authority, 25 A.D. 2d 682, 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......
-
Antinore v. State
...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 915, 290 N.Y.S.2d 680.2 The Penalty imposed, however, could still be ......
-
Taylor v. New York City Transit Authority
...on the lapsing of the applicable four-month statute of limitations for Article 78 actions. Taylor v. New York City Transit Authority, 25 A.D.2d 682, 269 N.Y.S. 2d 75, 76 (2d Dep't 1966). The Appellate Division, however, was not quite as firm on the issue of plaintiff's "knowledge" regarding......
-
Pauling v. Smith
...Therefore, the matter should have been heard and determined 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 c......