You are here: / / Petitioner’s Position Properly Abolished by Enactment of Town Bu...
,

Petitioner’s Position Properly Abolished by Enactment of Town Budget

The Second Department determined that the town did not act in bad faith when it abolished petitioner’s position through the enactment of the town budget. The court explained the applicable law:

A public employer may abolish civil service positions to “promote efficiency and economy,” provided that the employer acts in good faith … . Where a public employer has abolished a position, an employee challenging that determination has the burden of proving that the employer engaged in a bad faith effort to circumvent the Civil Service Law … . “Bad faith may be demonstrated by evidence that a newly hired person performed substantially the same duties as the discharged employee” … . “[W]hen there exists a triable issue of fact with regard to bad faith, a full hearing must be held” … .

Here, contrary to the petitioner’s contention, adoption of a municipal budget may properly serve, under certain circumstances, to abolish an employee’s position … . Matter of Grant v Town of Lewisboro, 2015 NY Slip Op 05187, 2nd Dept 6-17-14

 

You might also like
Evidence of an “Intimate Relationship” Sufficient to Give Family Court Subject Matter Jurisdiction Over Family Offense Proceeding
ON APPEAL DEFENDANT CHALLENGED THE VOLUNTARINESS OF HIS GUILTY PLEA BUT THE PLEA MINUTES WERE NOT AVAILABLE; DEFENDANT DID NOT SHOW THAT RECONSTRUCTION OF THE 2013 PLEA PROCEEDING WAS IMPOSSIBLE; THEREFORE THE MATTER WAS REMITTED FOR A RECONSTRUCTION HEARING (SECOND DEPT),
Action for a Declaratory Judgment Must Be Based Upon a Concrete Dispute, Not the Mere Possibility of Prejudice—Complaint Properly Dismissed
NO EVIDENCE POSSESSION OF A WEAPON AND SHOOTING THE VICTIM WERE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT, SENTENCES SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONCURRENT (SECOND DEPT).
Res Ipsa Loquitur Is Rarely a Basis for Summary Judgment/Questions of Fact About Defendant’s Control of the Instrumentality Causing Injury Precluded Summary Judgment.
Presumption in Favor of Resentencing (re: the New Scheme for Drug Offenses) Not Rebutted—Supreme Court Should Not Have Denied Motion for Resentencing
Defense Counsel’s Denial of Defendant’s Assertion He Was Forced to Plead Guilty Required Assignment of New Counsel
EVIDENCE THE AREA WAS INSPECTED ONCE A MONTH DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION OF THE DRIVEWAY IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Promise Made or Advice Given by a Municipal Employee Does Not Give Rise to Equitable... There Was a Rational Bases for Fire District Board of Commissioners’ Rejection...