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: HAVERSTRAW VILLAGE POLICEMEN'S BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION, INC., appellant, v. TOWN OF HAVERSTRAW, et al., respondents.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus to compel the respondents Town of Haverstraw, Howard Phillips, in his capacity as Supervisor of the Town of Haverstraw, and Vincent J. Gamboli, Jay Hood, John Ramundo, and Isidor Cancel, in their capacities as council persons of the Town of Haverstraw, to credit the members of the petitioner with sick leave accrued while the petitioner's members were police officers of the respondent Village of Haverstraw, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Sherwood, J.), entered August 21, 2006, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The “extraordinary remedy of mandamus will lie only to compel the performance of a ministerial act and only when there exists a clear legal right to the relief sought” (Matter of Green v. Sammarco, 33 A.D.3d 1000, 1000, 822 N.Y.S.2d 737; see Matter of Legal Aid Socy. of Sullivan County v. Scheinman, 53 N.Y.2d 12, 16, 439 N.Y.S.2d 882, 422 N.E.2d 542; Matter of O'Connor v. Modica, 33 A.D.3d 1007, 1008, 822 N.Y.S.2d 713; Matter of Reden v. Nassau County Civ. Serv. Commn., 133 A.D.2d 694, 519 N.Y.S.2d 864). Here, since the relief that the petitioner sought is discretionary in nature (see Civil Service Law § 70[2] ), mandamus does not lie (see Matter of Muzzillo v. Mount Vernon Civ. Serv. Commn., 238 A.D.2d 425, 426, 656 N.Y.S.2d 368).
In any event, to the extent that the petitioner contends that the respondents Town of Haverstraw, Howard Phillips, in his capacity as Supervisor of the Town of Haverstraw, Vincent J. Gamboli, Jay Hood, John Ramundo, and Isidor Cancel, in their capacities as councilpersons of the Town of Haverstraw, acted arbitrarily or capriciously in denying the petitioner's request to credit its members with accrued sick leave, this argument is without merit. The record establishes that the petitioner and the respondent Village of Haverstraw (hereinafter the Village) agreed to a buyout of the accrued sick leave of the petitioner's members, and the Village has, to date, made the agreed upon payments.
The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit.
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: June 26, 2007
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)