Opinion
July 31, 1995
Adjudged that the petition is granted, on the law, with costs, the determination is annulled, and the matter is remitted to the respondents for further proceedings consistent herewith.
Although we find that there is substantial evidence in the record to support the determination of the respondent Stanley Droskoski, under the particular circumstances of this case, the petitioner is entitled to a new hearing. The petitioner was compelled to proceed pro se after his request for an adjournment in order to obtain new counsel was denied. The petitioner's former attorney, who had been provided to the petitioner by the Police Benevolent Association, resigned from his employment with the Police Benevolent Association shortly before the hearing date, and this fact, in light of all of the other circumstances presented, excludes the possibility that the petitioner's request for an adjournment was a delaying tactic. Thus, we conclude that the denial of the petitioner's request deprived the petitioner of his due process rights (see, Matter of Dennelly v. County Attorney of Nassau County, 88 A.D.2d 912, 913; see also, Matter of Mera v. Tax Appeals Tribunal, 204 A.D.2d 818, 820; Patricia W. Walston, P.C. v. Axelrod, 103 A.D.2d 769, 771). Bracken, J.P., Balletta, Copertino and Hart, JJ., concur.