From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Serowick v. Barry

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 17, 1982
91 A.D.2d 866 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982)

Opinion

December 17, 1982

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Monroe County, Provenzano, J.

Present — Hancock, Jr., J.P., Doerr, Denman, Boomer and Schnepp, JJ.


Judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: Petitioner appeals from the dismissal of his petition seeking an order compelling respondent to reinstate him to his position as a State inspector at Finger Lakes Race Track. Petitioner served "during [the] pleasure" of respondent (see L 1973, ch 346, § 3; Racing and Wagering Board Law, § 201, subd 8) and had no right to review of his termination under section 75 Civ. Serv. of the Civil Service Law and no property interest in the continuation of his employment (see Bishop v Wood, 426 U.S. 341; Board of Regents v Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 578; Matter of Stanziale v Executive Dept., Off. of Gen. Servs., 55 N.Y.2d 735). Based on petitioner's claim that his discharge was accompanied by publicized accusations of misconduct which stigmatized him and thus deprived him of a liberty interest, Special Term directed that he be afforded a "stigma" hearing (see Codd v Velger, 429 U.S. 624; Bishop v Wood, supra; Board of Regents v Roth, supra; Matter of Petix v Connelie, 47 N.Y.2d 457). We affirmed ( Matter of Serowick v Barry, 74 A.D.2d 1008). Subsequent to the hearing, the hearing officer made findings which petitioner finds to be adverse to his position. Petitioner then commenced the instant proceeding seeking reinstatement to his former position. He does not request a new hearing. Special Term properly held that the petition failed to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted because the remedy sought by petitioner, reinstatement, would not be available to him regardless of the results of the "stigma" hearing; the purpose of such a hearing is solely "`to provide the person an opportunity to clear his name'" ( Codd v Velger, supra, p 627, quoting Board of Regents v Roth, supra, p 573, n 12; see Matter of Petix v Connelie, supra, p 460; cf. Matter of Stanziale v Executive Dept., Off. of Gen. Servs., supra).


Summaries of

Matter of Serowick v. Barry

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 17, 1982
91 A.D.2d 866 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982)
Case details for

Matter of Serowick v. Barry

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of CHESTER A. SEROWICK, Appellant, v. WILLIAM G. BARRY, as…

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

Date published: Dec 17, 1982

Citations

91 A.D.2d 866 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982)

Citing Cases

Matter of Preddice v. Callanan

Since the precise issue was not addressed in the earlier appeal, consideration of petitioner's claim is not…