From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Salvador v. Naylor

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Dec 21, 1995
222 A.D.2d 931 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

December 21, 1995


Petitioners, residents of the Town of Queensbury, Warren County, commenced this proceeding pursuant to Public Officers Law § 36 to remove respondent from his position as Town Superintendent of Highways. Petitioners allege, as grounds for removal, that respondent acted in derogation of his oath of office and of the State Highway Law by ordering the discontinuation of a portion of a certain town road. Petitioners contend that the closing of this road was illegal and demonstrated respondent's "lack of attention to the fine points of the Highway Law." Although respondent admits that he ordered the road closed, he denies that this action was improper and contends that it is not grounds for removal from office. Respondent moves, inter alia, to dismiss the petition for failure to state a cause of action. We grant respondent's motion.

The purpose of Public Officers Law § 36 is to "`enable a town or village to rid itself of an unfaithful or dishonest public official'" ( Matter of Deats v Carpenter, 61 A.D.2d 320, 322, quoting Matter of Newman v Strobel, 236 App. Div. 371, 373). Thus, to state a cause of action under this statute, a petition must contain "`allegations of self-dealing, corrupt activities, conflict of interest, moral turpitude, intentional wrongdoing or violation of a public trust'" ( Matter of Morin v Gallagher, 221 A.D.2d 765, quoting Matter of Deats v Carpenter, supra, at 322; see, Feldberg v Friedland, 221 A.D.2d 766; Matter of Williams v Travis, 194 A.D.2d 969; Matter of Smith v Perlman, 105 A.D.2d 878; Matter of Greco v MacLean, 99 A.D.2d 810).

Here, even accepting as true petitioners' allegations that respondent misconstrued the Highway Law, respondent's acts do not constitute the sort of unscrupulous conduct or gross dereliction of duty contemplated by Public Officers Law § 36. Accordingly, we conclude that the petition fails to state a cause of action and must be dismissed.

Mikoll, J.P., White, Casey, Yesawich Jr. and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the motion to dismiss is granted and the petition is dismissed, with $100 costs and disbursements.


Summaries of

Matter of Salvador v. Naylor

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Dec 21, 1995
222 A.D.2d 931 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Matter of Salvador v. Naylor

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of JOHN SALVADOR, JR., et al., Petitioners, v. PAUL H…

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

Date published: Dec 21, 1995

Citations

222 A.D.2d 931 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
635 N.Y.S.2d 769

Citing Cases

Salvador v. Ross

of unscrupulous conduct or intentional wrongdoing, let alone evidence of any gross dereliction of duties or a…

Miller v. Filion

We grant respondents' motion. It is well settled that Public Officers Law § 36 "was enacted to `enable a town…