Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Matter of Michael PAYTON, Petitioner, v. BUFFALO CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, Respondent.
Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to annul respondent's determination, after a hearing conducted by a Hearing Officer, finding petitioner guilty of misconduct and terminating his employment as a teacher's aide. We agree with petitioner that respondent failed to comply with Civil Service Law § 75(2) and thus lacked jurisdiction to discipline him. Section 75(2) provides in pertinent part that a hearing on charges preferred against an employee “shall be held by the officer or body having the power to remove the person against whom such charges are preferred, or by a deputy or other person designated by such officer or body in writing for that purpose.” “In the absence of a written delegation authorizing a deputy or other person to conduct the hearing, the removing board or officer has no jurisdiction to discipline an employee” (Matter of Wiggins v. Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 60 N.Y.2d 385, 387, 469 N.Y.S.2d 652, 457 N.E.2d 758; see Matter of Pieczonka v. Jewett, 273 A.D.2d 842, 843, 709 N.Y.S.2d 302; Matter of Teamster Local Union No. 182 v. Upper Mohawk Val. Regional Water Bd., 259 A.D.2d 1008, 1008, 688 N.Y.S.2d 310). There is no evidence in the record of a written delegation by respondent authorizing the Hearing Officer to conduct petitioner's hearing. We therefore annul the determination and grant the petition in part by reinstating petitioner with back pay and benefits without prejudice to further proceedings by respondent.
It is hereby ORDERED that the determination be and the same hereby is unanimously annulled on the law with costs and the petition is granted in part.
MEMORANDUM:
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: November 15, 2002
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)