TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Taylor v. New York City Transit Authority

In the Matter of Julian C. Taylor v. New York City Transit Authority

Taylor v. N.Y. City Transit Auth., 25 A.D.2d 682 (1966)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
March 28, 1966
Judges
Benjamin, Brennan, Christ, Hill, Hopkins
Citations
25 A.D.2d 682269 N.Y.S.2d 751966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4675

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

In a proceeding pursuant to article *683 78 of the CPLR to review and annul a determination of respondent New York City Transit Authority dismissing petitioner from its employ, petitioner appeals, as limited by his briefs, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered January 13, 1965, as dismissed his petition and confirmed the determination. Judgment affirmed, insofar as appealed from, without costs. We agree with the holding at Special Term that petitioner, by appealing from his dismissal to the respondent Civil Service Commission, elected his remedy and was foreclosed from seeking judicial review, since his dismissal was not “ purely arbitrary.” Thus, although we disapprove of the participation of the former counsel to the Transit Authority in the Authority’s determination in his role as a Commissioner, we can not disturb the decision of the Civil Service Commission. We additionally find that petitioner knew, or should have known, at the time of his appeal to the Civil Service Commission, that Commissioner Scannell had taken part as a member of the Authority in the adoption of the recommendations of the hearing referee. Therefore, in addition to the reason stated by Special Term, we affirm on the grounds of the expiration of the four-month Statute of Limitations (CPLR 217) and laches. (Austin v. Board of Higher Educ. of City of N. Y., 5 N Y 2d 430.)

Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Hill, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1970: 21976: 21977: 11978: 119702026peak 1970 · 2

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list