From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Miller v. Filion

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Apr 17, 2003
304 A.D.2d 1016 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

92724

April 17, 2003.

Proceeding initiated in this Court pursuant to Public Officers Law § 36 to remove respondents from various offices in the Town of Clinton, Clinton County.

Dinah Miller, Churubusco, petitioner pro se.

Harris Beach L.L.P., Plattsburgh (Thomas W. Plimpton of counsel), for respondents.

Before: Mercure, J.P., Spain, Carpinello, Rose and Kane, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT


Petitioner, the former Town Clerk for the Town of Clinton, Clinton County, commenced the current proceeding seeking to remove respondents from the offices of Town Supervisor, Town Clerk and Members of the Town Council. The petition sets forth 20 separate grounds of misconduct which, petitioner contends, warrant removal of respondents as a matter of law. Respondents refute all 20 allegations and move to dismiss the petition for failure to state a cause of action. We grant respondents' motion.

It is well settled that Public Officers Law § 36 "was enacted to `enable a town or village to rid itself of an unfaithful or dishonest public official'" (Matter of Deats v. Carpenter, 61 A.D.2d 320, 322, quoting Matter of Newman v. Strobel, 236 A.D. 371, 373; see Matter of Salvador v. Naylor, 222 A.D.2d 931, 931). In this respect, to state a cause of action pursuant to this section, a petition must include "`allegations of self-dealing, corrupt activities, conflict of interest, moral turpitude, intentional wrongdoing or violation of a public trust'" (Matter of Morin v. Gallagher, 221 A.D.2d 765, 766, quoting Matter of Deats v. Carpenter, supra at 322; see Matter of Salvador v. Naylor,supra at 931).

Here, petitioner's 20 allegations deal primarily with respondents' alleged failure to timely file various documents, follow certain technical procedures and timely comply with requests under the Freedom of Information Law. Such alleged transgressions, even accepting them as true, do not amount to the sort of unscrupulous conduct or gross dereliction of duty contemplated by Public Officers Law § 36. Thus, we conclude that the petition fails to state a cause of action and must be dismissed.

Mercure, J.P., Spain, Carpinello and Kane, JJ., concur.

ADJUDGED that the motion to dismiss is granted, with costs, and petition dismissed.


Summaries of

Miller v. Filion

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Apr 17, 2003
304 A.D.2d 1016 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Miller v. Filion

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of DINAH MILLER, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL FILION et al.…

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

Date published: Apr 17, 2003

Citations

304 A.D.2d 1016 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
756 N.Y.S.2d 922

Citing Cases

Salvador v. Ross

She also requests that sanctions be imposed by this Court for frivolous conduct. The allegations in the…

Kalodukas v. Berentsen

On March 19, 2014, respondent lost his bid for reelection and no longer holds the public office from which…