IN RE: PAUL BECALLO (2015)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

PRO SE.

Proceeding pursuant to Public Officers Law § 36 (initiated in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department on February 10, 2015) for the removal of respondent from the public office of Supervisor for the Town of Cicero.

It is hereby ORDERED that said petition is unanimously dismissed without costs.

Respondent established that she began a romantic relationship with the employee in the fall of 2011 while she was a Town councilperson and that she sought an opinion from the Town Attorney in February 2012 whether there was a conflict of interest as a result of that relationship.   The Town Attorney advised her in a written opinion that there was no conflict of interest.   The Town Attorney reiterated that opinion at a Town Board meeting in April 2014, when respondent was Town Supervisor.  General Municipal Law § 801 provides that “no municipal officer ․ shall have an interest in any contract with the municipality of which [she] is an officer ․ when such officer ․ has the power or duty to ․ approve the contract ․ or approve payment thereunder.”   “Interest” is defined in section 800(3), in relevant part, as “a direct or indirect pecuniary or material benefit accruing to a municipal officer ․ as a result of a contract with the municipality which such officer ․ serves ․ [A] municipal officer ․ shall be deemed to have an interest in the contract of ․ [her] spouse, minor children and dependent.”   Those provisions do not apply here.

“Public Officers Law § 36 was enacted to enable a town ․ to rid itself of an unfaithful or dishonest public official” (Reszka, 109 AD3d at 1134 [internal quotation marks omitted] ), and petitioner has failed to establish that respondent is either unfaithful or dishonest in the performance of her duties as Town Supervisor.  “[T]he petition does not set forth a single act of unscrupulous conduct or intentional wrongdoing, let alone evidence of any gross dereliction of duties or a pattern of misconduct” (Salvador, 61 AD3d at 1164–1165).   We therefore dismiss the petition (see Hedman, 56 AD3d at 1287–1288).

Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court