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.
IN RE: RICHARD E. SLAGLE, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, v. JOHN KEENEY, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS MAYOR OF CELORON, AND VILLAGE OF CELORON, NEW YORK, RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment insofar as appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs and the petition is dismissed in its entirety.
Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking, inter alia, to annul the allegedly wrongful termination of his employment as Code Enforcement Officer for respondent Village of Celoron (Village) in August 2009. We agree with respondents that Supreme Court should have dismissed the petition in its entirety. Pursuant to the Village's Local Law No. 2-1985, a term of office for the position of Code Enforcement Officer is two years. It is undisputed that the term of petitioner's predecessor ended in March 2007 and that petitioner was appointed in April 2008. We note that the record is unclear whether petitioner's predecessor was reappointed to a two-year term in 2007 pursuant to Local Law No. 2-1985. In the event that he was reappointed and the position thereafter became vacant, petitioner's term would have been “for the balance of [the] unexpired term[ ]” of petitioner's predecessor pursuant to Village Law § 3-312(3)(a). If no action was taken to reappoint petitioner's predecessor, then the predecessor held the position through April 2008 in a holdover capacity pursuant to Public Officers Law § 5. “An appointment for a term shortened by reason of a predecessor holding over [ ] shall be for the residue of the term only” (id.). Thus,regardless of which statute applies, petitioner's term of office ended in March 2009, prior to petitioner's termination.
Patricia L. Morgan
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: CA 09-02543
Decided: May 07, 2010
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)