From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Arciello v. County of Nassau

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 3, 2003
1 A.D.3d 300 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2002-06196

Argued September 5, 2003.

November 3, 2003.

In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the County of Nassau's assignment of Correction Officers to transport inmates violates Civil Service Law § 61(2), the plaintiffs appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Phelan, J.), dated May 6, 2002, which granted the motion of the defendant Sheriff Officers Association, Inc., in which the defendants County of Nassau and Nassau County Civil Service Commission joined, for summary judgment, denied their cross motion for summary judgment, and declared that the County of Nassau may assign Correction Officers to transport inmates and that such assignments do not violate Civil Service Law § 61(2).

Louis D. Stober, Jr., LLC, Garden City, N.Y. (Danielle N. Nucci of counsel), for appellants.

Lorna B. Goodman, County Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (David B. Goldin and Mary Elisabeth Ostermann of counsel), for respondents County of Nassau and Nassau County Civil Service Commission.

Thomas A. Toscano, P.C., Mineola, N.Y. (David A. Loglisci of counsel), for respondent Sheriff Officers Association, Inc.

Before: FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order and judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The defendants established their entitlement to summary judgment by submitting evidence sufficient to demonstrate that the County of Nassau did not violate Civil Service Law § 61(2) ( see Gavigan v. McCoy, 37 N.Y.2d 548; Civil Serv. Empls. Assn. v. New Hyde Park/Garden City Park Union Free School Dist., 230 A.D.2d 702; Matter of Fitzpatrick v. Ruffo, 110 A.D.2d 1032, 1034, affd 66 N.Y.2d 647; Glasbrenner v. Bellacosa, 139 A.D.2d 491; cf. Matter of MacRae v. Dolce, 273 A.D.2d 389; Woodward v. Governor's Off. of Empl. Relations, 279 A.D.2d 725). In response, the plaintiffs failed to submit proof sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact ( see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320). Consequently, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment ( see Matter of Babor v. Nassau County Civ. Serv. Commn, 297 A.D.2d 342).

The plaintiffs' remaining contentions are without merit.

SANTUCCI, J.P., KRAUSMAN, SCHMIDT and RIVERA, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Arciello v. County of Nassau

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 3, 2003
1 A.D.3d 300 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Arciello v. County of Nassau

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT ARCIELLO, ET AL., appellants, v. COUNTY OF NASSAU, ET AL.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Nov 3, 2003

Citations

1 A.D.3d 300 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
766 N.Y.S.2d 859

Citing Cases

Husamudeen v. Deblasio

k is not considered out-of-title if it is related to, similar in nature to, or a reasonable outgrowth of, the…