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: Patricia A. GUMO, Petitioner, v. Joseph CANZONERI, etc., et al., Respondents, Anthony Panzarella, etc., et al., Respondents-Respondents.
Proceeding, inter alia, pursuant to Public Officers Law § 36, to remove, among others, the respondents Anthony Panzarella and Joseph Hennessy from public office in the Village of Malverne, Nassau County. By decision, order, and judgment of this court dated July 6, 1999, those branches of the petition which were to remove Anthony Panzarella and Joseph Hennessy from public office were remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a hearing to take testimony and report its findings to this court on the issue of whether the respondents Anthony Panzarella and Joseph Hennessy had engaged in conduct which required their removal from public office, and the proceeding against the remaining respondents was dismissed (see, Matter of Gumo v. Canzoneri, 263 A.D.2d 456, 693 N.Y.S.2d 618). The Supreme Court, Queens County, has filed its report.
ADJUDGED that the petition insofar as asserted against the respondents Anthony Panzarella and Joseph Hennessy is denied and the proceeding insofar as asserted against them is dismissed on the merits, with costs.
Based on the Supreme Court's findings of fact, we conclude that the petition insofar as asserted against Anthony Panzarella and Joseph Hennessy (hereinafter the respondents) must be denied because those two individuals were not members of the Board of Trustees (hereinafter the Board) when certain of the alleged misconduct occurred. Moreover, after they took office they voted against a number of the allegedly improper actions taken by the Board. In addition, the petitioner failed to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that those respondents engaged in any intentional wrongdoing, self-dealing, or gross dereliction of duty. The respondents' conduct did not rise to the level of malfeasance, misconduct, maladministration, or malversation that would warrant removal from public office pursuant to Public Officers Law § 36 (see, Matter of Feldberg v. Friedland, 221 A.D.2d 766, 633 N.Y.S.2d 847; Matter of Greco v. MacLean, 99 A.D.2d 810, 472 N.Y.S.2d 140; Matter of Deats v. Carpenter, 61 A.D.2d 320, 403 N.Y.S.2d 128; Matter of Pisciotta v. Dendievel, 41 A.D.2d 949, 343 N.Y.S.2d 992).
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
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: October 02, 2000
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)