Opinion
March 4, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Hillery, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the determination is reinstated, and the petition is dismissed.
The Supreme Court properly concluded that the petition was not barred by the applicable Statute of Limitations ( see, Civil Service Law § 76; CPLR 217; Matter of Owen v Town Bd., 94 A.D.2d 768; cf., Matter of Smith v Village of Pawling, 215 A.D.2d 667). However, the Supreme Court erred in annulling the Board's determination because contrary to the court's conclusion, Village Law § 8-804 only requires "five days' notice and an opportunity to be heard" with regard to the hearing on the charges, and not with regard to the Board's final determination. In any event, prior to the Board's final determination, the petitioner received a copy of the Hearing Officer's findings and recommendations and was given an opportunity to controvert, in writing, the Hearing Officer's findings and conclusions ( see generally, Matter of Sorrentino v State Liq. Auth., 10 N.Y.2d 143; Matter of Fogel v Board of Educ., 48 A.D.2d 925). Mangano, P.J., Thompson, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.