Opinion
04-28-2017
In the Matter of the Application of Leon ANDERSON, Interlaken Police Department, Chief of Police, Petitioner, v. William McGUIRE, Interlaken Village Board of Trustees Officer, Respondent.
The Lama Law Firm, LLP, Ithaca (Luciano L. Lama of Counsel), for petitioner. David Lee Foster, Geneva, for respondent.
The Lama Law Firm, LLP, Ithaca (Luciano L. Lama of Counsel), for petitioner.
David Lee Foster, Geneva, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
Petitioner commenced this original proceeding pursuant to Public Officers Law § 36 seeking the removal of respondent as an officer of the Board of Trustees of the Village of Interlaken (Board). We conclude that respondent's alleged conduct, accepted as true, "does not rise to the level necessary to justify his removal from office under Public Officers Law § 36" (Matter of Jones v. Filkins, 238 A.D.2d 954, 954, 661 N.Y.S.2d 167 ), and we therefore dismiss the petition.
" Public Officers Law § 36 was enacted to enable a town or village to rid itself of an unfaithful or dishonest public official" (Matter of Hayes v. Avitabile, 133 A.D.3d 1184, 1184, 19 N.Y.S.3d 636 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Reszka v. Collins
, 109 A.D.3d 1134, 1134, 971 N.Y.S.2d 762 ). Removal is appropriate only in instances of "self-dealing, corrupt activities, conflict of interest, moral turpitude, intentional wrongdoing or violation of a public trust" (Hayes, 133 A.D.3d at 1184, 19 N.Y.S.3d 636 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Reszka, 109 A.D.3d at 1134, 971 N.Y.S.2d 762 ). Contrary to petitioner's contention, he failed to allege removable conduct insofar as he alleged that respondent overstepped his authority in attempting to micromanage the police department (see generally Matter of Salvador v. Ross, 61 A.D.3d 1163, 1164–1165, 876 N.Y.S.2d 754 ), obtained and disclosed confidential information at Board meetings (see Matter of Chandler v. Weir, 30 A.D.3d 795, 796, 817 N.Y.S.2d 194 ), and held one "special meeting" of the Board without notifying the public (see Matter of Hart v. Trumansburg Bd. of Trustees, 41 A.D.3d 1025, 1026, 838 N.Y.S.2d 246 ). Those allegations constitute "minor neglect of dut[ies], administrative oversight[s] [and] violation[s] of law" for which removal is unwarranted (Hayes, 133 A.D.3d at 1185, 19 N.Y.S.3d 636 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Hedman v. Town Bd. of Town of Howard, 56 A.D.3d 1287, 1287–1288, 867 N.Y.S.2d 634 ).
Finally, we are particularly unpersuaded by petitioner's contention that respondent's stance as a legislator on certain public policy issues warrants his removal. It is well established that "courts do not inquire into the wisdom, reasons or motives for [legislative action] absent fraud, corruption or oppression, but leave such matters to the discretion of the [legislators]" (Matter of Stetter v. Town Bd. of Town of Amherst, 46 A.D.2d 1006, 1006–1007, 362 N.Y.S.2d 97 ).It is hereby ORDERED that said petition is unanimously dismissed without costs.
CARNI, J.P., LINDLEY, DeJOSEPH, CURRAN, and TROUTMAN, JJ., concur.