From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Moshier v. City of Little Falls

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 21, 2001
281 A.D.2d 913 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

March 21, 2001.

Appeals from Judgment of Supreme Court, Herkimer County, Kirk, J. — CPLR art 78.

BEFORE: PIGOTT, JR., P. J., WISNER, HURLBUTT, KEHOE AND LAWTON, JJ.


Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum:

Respondent, the City of Little Falls, appeals and petitioner, a municipal police officer, cross-appeals from a judgment resolving two CPLR article 78 proceedings. In the first proceeding, Supreme Court denied that part of the petition seeking to annul respondent's determination eliminating the title/position of detective and to restore petitioner to that position, but nevertheless granted that part of the petition seeking imposition of sanctions against respondent pursuant to 22 NYCRR part 130. In the second proceeding, the court granted the petition seeking to annul respondent's determination denying petitioner's application for benefits pursuant to General Municipal Law § 207-c.

The court properly determined that respondent did not act in bad faith or in violation of Civil Service Law § 75 (1) (e) in eliminating the title/position of detective ( see generally, Matter of Wood v. Irving, 85 N.Y.2d 238, 246; Matter of Dombroski v. Bloom, 170 A.D.2d 805, 806). We conclude, however, that the court erred in imposing sanctions against respondent pursuant to 22 NYCRR part 130, which concerns frivolous or bad faith conduct undertaken in the context of civil litigation ( see, Stow v. Stow, 262 A.D.2d 550, 551). Sanctions pursuant to part 130 are "not a substitute for the court's power to punish for contempt of its own orders" ( Stow v. Stow, supra, at 551). We therefore modify the judgment by denying the first petition in its entirety.

Upon our review of the record, we conclude that petitioner, as a matter of law, sustained no duty-related injury or illness and therefore is not entitled to benefits under General Municipal Law § 207-c ( see, Matter of Balcerak v. County of Nassau, 94 N.Y.2d 253, 258-259; Matter of Lynch v. South Niack/Grand View Police Dept., 277 A.D.2d ___ [decided Nov. 22, 2000]; Matter of Cohoes Police Officers Union, Local 756, Council 82, AFSCME AFL-CIO [City of Cohoes], 263 A.D.2d 652; Matter of O'Hara v. Bigger, 228 A.D.2d 507; Youngs v. Village of Penn Yan, 180 Misc.2d 190, 191-192). We therefore further modify the judgment by denying the second petition.


Summaries of

Matter of Moshier v. City of Little Falls

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 21, 2001
281 A.D.2d 913 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

Matter of Moshier v. City of Little Falls

Case Details

Full title:MATTER OF GARY MOSHIER, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT-APPELLANT, v. CITY OF LITTLE…

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

Date published: Mar 21, 2001

Citations

281 A.D.2d 913 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
721 N.Y.S.2d 848

Citing Cases

Youngs v. Village of Penn Yan

The stipulated facts and attached documents submitted by the parties contain no medical records or reports.…