MATTER OF MINGO v. Pirnie
MATTER OF MINGO v. Pirnie
Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated in the memorandum of the Appellate Division except insofar as it discusses a right to a hearing because of injury to petitioner’s reputation. Inasmuch as that issue was not raised in the petition, it need not be reached here (cf. Matter of Anonymous v Codd, 40 NY2d 860).
In addition, we note that the respondents’ determination to disqualify petitioner was neither without factual basis nor was it arbitrary or capricious.
Concurring Opinion
(concurring). I agree that injury to reputation was not raised in the petition and write only to articulate my views concerning subdivision 4 of section 50 of the Civil Service Law. That section requires no more than that the person to be disqualified be “given a written statement of the reasons therefor and afforded an opportunity to make an explanation and to submit facts in opposition to such disqualification.” It provides for no hearing and gives no authority to require one by the agency. Even at Special Term a hearing will not generally be required (cf. Johnson v City of New York, 63 AD2d 886; and Matter
Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Wachtler and Fuchsberg concur; Judge Meyer concurs in an opinion in which Judge Jasen also concurs; Judge Jones taking no hart.
, Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- In the Matter of Robert M. Mingo, Appellant, v. Peter Pirnie, as Personnel Officer for Wayne County and Director of Wayne County Civil Service Commission, Et Al., Respondents
- Cited By
- 6 cases
- Status
- Published