The City University of New York (CUNY) has its own Civil Service Commission. The commission hears and determines complaints of violations of NYS Civil Service Laws and the CUNY rules and regulations. The CUNY website is an extensive resourse on the functions of the CUNY Civil Service Commission. It can be found at web.cuny.edu/jobs/civil-service/ccsc.html.
Further New York State Civil Service Law information can be found at www.sheerinlaw.com/civil
Supreme Court Justice Molly R. Fitzgerald has ruled that the Woolerton Street Bridge is the responsibility of the town of Delhi, not the village. This case began with an Article 78 filed by the village against the town. Article 78 in this case was used to compel the town to do what they are supposed to do in maintaining the bridge. David Merzif, representing the village cited a similar case involving a bridge in Chestnut Ridge which concluded that a bridge is a span that goes over a stream and the town is responsible for it unless the village voluntarily takes responsibility. Delhi Supervisor Peter Bracci said there will be a special meeting of the Delhi Town Board to discuss the decision and look into starting the appeals process. There is also more debate involving the length of bridge and how it could possibly affect its classification. Lois Ray, chairwoman of the bridge committee, said that the committee is attempting to have the bridge rebuilt to county specifications so that it will become a county bridge, relieving both the town and village of any maintenance responsibility.
To read about Article 78 cases go to http://www.sheerinlaw.com/?id=78.
For other interesting information in the personal injury file go to www.negligenceatty.com.
According to Sheriff Kevin Walsh, two jail deputies have been disciplined as a result of an investigation into an inmate suicide at Onondaga County Justice Center in 2008. The first deputy was suspended and the second was counseled and retrained. Inmate, Michael Tew, 19, had been charged with second-degree arson and violating terms of probation from a 2006 incident. On November 2, 2008 at 7 a.m. Tew was found dead in his cell after hanging himself. It was concluded that he had been dead for three to four hours by the time his body was discovered, even though the first deputy performed checks every half-hour and the second deputy toured the cells at 4:15 a.m. The suspended officer failed to perform the Justice Center’s required population count at 6:30 that morning. It is impossible to know whether Tew’s death could have been prevented even if rounds had been made promptly because he would have enough time between them to kill himself. As a result the first deputy was suspended for 30 days without pay then assigned to the Temporary Assignment Unit. Sheriff Walsh is waiting on a Civil Service hearing where he is looking to have the deputy terminated. Unfortunately no comments made by Tew threatening to take his life were reported to authorities.
To read about Article 78 cases go to http://www.sheerinlaw.com/?id=78.
For other interesting information in the personal injury file go to www.negligenceatty.com.
Café Concerto Ltd. v New York State Liquor Authority
In this Article 78 proceeding, petitioner appealed a determination of the New York State Liquor Authority which imposed a civil penalty for the violation of Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65(1) and State Liquor Authority Rule 54.2. In January of 2006, police officers responded to a complaint of underage drinking at petitioner’s premises. Four charges were brought against petitioner: allowing the sale of alcohol to an underage person, failure to exercise adequate supervision over the conduct of the business, permitting the premises to become disorderly, and allowing to premises to become disorderly by permitting an altercation to occur.
A hearing was held and the last two charges were dropped. The first two charges involving the sale of alcohol to minors were upheld because of the testimony of Officer Chowdhury. Officer Chowdhury testified that when he arrived at the premises he noticed a lot of individuals drinking at the bar who he believed to be underage. He pulled aside eight bar patrons to further question them. According to Officer Chowdhury, two of these individuals showed him identification indicating they were under 21. He sniffed their beverages and determined by smell that they contained alcohol. The other six individuals did not have identification and the Officer told them to leave because he believed them to be underage. Officer Chowdhury then issued six summonses to the bartender.
The ALJ determined that while there was no evidence to substantiate charges 3 and 4, they felt Officer Chowdhury’s testimony was credible and imposed a $7,000 civil penalty on petitioner. Petitioner then commenced this Article 78 appeal alleging that the penalty was “arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, unsupported by substantial evidence, and not based upon a reasonable basis”. Petitioner argued that respondent failed to establish that alcoholic beverages were in fact sold to any individuals under 21. The Court agrees with petitioner. The burden of proof rests upon the State Liquor Authority (SLA) to prove the age of an alleged minor at the time of the violation. Since Officer Chowdhury did not make copies of the minor’s identifications there is nothing in the record to corroborate the dates of birth scribbled on the summonses. Also, there is inadequate proof that the beverages possessed by the eight individuals contained alcohol. Officer Chowdhury did not taste or field test any of the drinks. Additionally, Officer Chowdhury did not see any underage individuals being served by any bartender on the premises.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court granted the petition and annulled the determination, without costs.
To read about Article 78 cases go to http://www.sheerinlaw.com/?id=78.
For other interesting information in the personal injury file go to www.negligenceatty.com.
Matter of Paul A. Stymiloski v. Thomas DiNapoli, as Comptroller of the State of New York
This Article 78 proceeding was commenced to review a determination of respondent denying petitioner’s application for accidental disability retirement benefits. Petitioner, Paul Stymiloski, was a police officer in the Village of Ossining. In December of 2005, he was engaged in a routine patrol when he noticed a vehicle parked by a 24-hour pharmacy was on fire. He radioed for assistance and then, with the help of the car’s owner, pushed the car away from the store’s entrance to minimize the risk of the fire spreading. After the fire personnel arrived, petitioner and two fire fighters pushed the car even further away. In the process of doing this, petitioner slipped and fell on ice that formed from water the fire department had sprayed to put out the fire. Petitioner sustained a shoulder injury and filed for accidental disability and performance of duty retirement benefits. He was awarded the performance of duty benefits but denied the accidental disability retirement benefits. He then requested a redetermination but the Hearing Officer upheld the decision prompting this Article 78 appeal.
The Supreme Court agreed with the Hearing Officer’s determination. Since petitioner sustained his injury while performing “ordinary employment duties” as a result of “an unexpected or foreseeable event” it would not merit an award of benefits based on the accidental disability provision.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court confirmed the determination, without costs, and dismissed the petition.
To read about Article 78 cases go to http://www.sheerinlaw.com/?id=78.
For other interesting information in the personal injury file go to www.negligenceatty.com.
Former Saranac Lake Police Chief Donald Perryman was involved in a cover up involving two police officers who were in a car accident on their way home from a training seminar. The officers admitted to drinking that afternoon. Perryman directed another officer to drive the two officers home, arranged to have the car towed from the scene of the accident and did not compel the officers to submit to alcohol testing. Perryman has been charged with 12 counts of misconduct. He filed an Article 78 appeal following his termination claiming that the hearing board’s decision was arbitrary and capricious. The state appeals court dismissed Perryman’s claim and upheld the ruling of the board.
To read about Article 78 cases go to http://www.sheerinlaw.com/?id=78.
For other interesting information in the personal injury file go to www.negligenceatty.com.
Enter keywords:
