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.
Moses GREEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, Respondent-Respondent.
Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Doris Ling-Cohan, J.), entered on or about July 22, 2005, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding, brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, challenging respondent's determination terminating petitioner's employment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Petitioner's argument that his termination was improper because respondent failed to provide him with a five-day Command Notification Letter or a follow-up twenty-day letter is not properly before us, since defendant never raised this issue at the administrative level (see Matter of Yarbough v. Franco, 95 N.Y.2d 342, 347, 717 N.Y.S.2d 79, 740 N.E.2d 224 [2000] ). Moreover, “[j]udicial review of administrative determinations pursuant to CPLR article 78 is limited to questions of law [citation omitted]. Unpreserved issues are not questions of law. Accordingly, the Appellate Division ha[s] no discretionary authority or interest of justice jurisdiction in reviewing the agency's determination” (Matter of Khan v. New York State Dept. of Health, 96 N.Y.2d 879, 880, 730 N.Y.S.2d 783, 756 N.E.2d 71 [2001] ). This includes petitioner's due process arguments (see Matter of Walker v. Franco, 96 N.Y.2d 891, 892, 730 N.Y.S.2d 785, 756 N.E.2d 74 [2001]; Matter of Huang Sheng Ku v. Dana Alexander, Inc., 12 A.D.3d 988, 989, 785 N.Y.S.2d 167 [2004] ). In any event, petitioner has demonstrated no substantial prejudice by the alleged failure (Guangdong Chems. Import & Export Corp. v. United States, 414 F.Supp.2d 1300, 1306 [Ct. Intl. Trade, 2006] ). These letters are meant, essentially, to provide petitioner only with notice and an opportunity to be heard, which petitioner was unquestionably granted here. Even if the 20-day letter is read to afford petitioner an opportunity to return to work and submit documentation validating his absences for alleged illness, he was given that opportunity at the administrative hearing to provide such necessary documentation but was unable to do so.
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 09, 2006
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First 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)