From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Carson v. New York City Dept. of Sanitation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 27, 2000
271 A.D.2d 380 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

April 27, 2000.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barry Cozier, J.), entered September 23, 1998, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendant-respondent's motion to convert petitioner's breach of contract action into an article 78 proceeding, and order, same court (Beverly Cohen, J.), entered March 16, 1999, which dismissed the ensuing CPLR article 78 petition seeking to, inter alia, annul respondent's determination terminating petitioner from his position as a New York City Department of Sanitation (DOS) employee, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Nathaniel B. Smith, for plaintiff-appellant.

Helen P. Brown, for defendants-respondents.

MAZZARELLI, J.P., ELLERIN, LERNER, RUBIN, ANDRIAS, JJ.


Petitioner's action for breach of contract and promissory estoppel was properly converted into a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, since the complaint filed by petitioner effectively sought petitioner's reinstatement to his former position as a DOS employee, and respondents had the statutory and regulatory authority to issue a final and binding determination with respect to this employment (cf., Abiele Contr., Inc. v. New York City School Constr. Auth., 91 N.Y.2d 1). Also proper was the ensuing dismissal of petitioner's application pursuant to CPLR article 78. In this connection, petitioner's claim of promissory estoppel is without merit, for even if a DOS employee had promised petitioner reinstatement upon his completion of a drug treatment program, the promise was unauthorized and DOS was not bound by it (Granada Bldgs., Inc. v. City of Kingston, 58 N.Y.2d 705, 708), particularly in light of petitioner's prior execution and violation of a final termination agreement, which agreement was concealed from the DOS employee. Finally, we note that, even if the instant petition possessed merit, it would have been properly dismissed as time-barred since it was filed more than four months subsequent to issuance of the challenged determination (see, CPLR 217[1]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

Carson v. New York City Dept. of Sanitation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 27, 2000
271 A.D.2d 380 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Carson v. New York City Dept. of Sanitation

Case Details

Full title:CALVIN CARSON, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Apr 27, 2000

Citations

271 A.D.2d 380 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
707 N.Y.S.2d 93

Citing Cases

Glenwood Mgmt. Corp. v. Bicks

There is also New York authority for the proposition that an unauthorized promise cannot form the basis of a…

Walsh v. New York State Thruway Authority

Here, the plaintiff alleged in his complaint that he was terminated without a hearing in violation of his…