Filed Date: 6/16/2000
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/1/2024
Determination unanimously annulled on the law without costs and petition granted. Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to annul the determination of respondents finding him guilty of various charges and terminating his employment with respondent Village of Blasdell. He contends that respondents failed to comply with Civil Service Law § 75 (2) and thus lacked jurisdiction, that the determination is not supported by substantial evidence and that the penalty is excessive. Because resolution of the issue with respect to Civil Service Law § 75 (2) would not have “terminate [d] the proceeding” within the meaning of CPLR 7804 (g) (see, Matter of Ocean v Selsky, 252 AD2d 984; Matter of G & G Shops v New York City Loft Bd., 193 AD2d 405), Supreme Court erred in deciding that issue. “The matter now being before us, however, we may decide the issue de novo” (Matter of Ocean v Selsky, supra, at 985).
We agree with petitioner that respondents failed to comply with Civil Service Law § 75 (2), which provides in relevant part that the hearing on the charges preferred against the employee “shall be held by the officer or body having the power to remove