You are here: / / NYC CHARTER DID NOT GIVE THE PUBLIC ADVOCATE AUTHORITY FOR A SUMMARY INQUIRY...
,

NYC CHARTER DID NOT GIVE THE PUBLIC ADVOCATE AUTHORITY FOR A SUMMARY INQUIRY INTO THE ADEQUACY OF SOFTWARE USED TO TRACK STUDENTS WITH INDIVIDUALIZED EDUCATION PROGRAMS, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Oing, over a full-fledged, two-justice, dissenting opinion, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the NYC Charter did give the Public Advocate the power to conduct a summary inquiry into the adequacy of computer software designed to keep track of students with Individualized Education Programs (IEP’s) and to seek appropriate funding from Medicaid:

We agree with [Matter of Green v Giuliani (187 Misc 2d at 138)] that [NYC Charter] section 1109’s reach includes not only corruption, but “all forms of official misconduct.”… Arguably, in light of Green, section 1109’s reach continues to evolve over time to include areas not limited to corruption. The question that remains is whether the section 1109 phrase “any alleged violation or neglect of duty” should be broadened so as to bring within its reach all forms of conduct, including acts that amount to administrative inefficiency, deficiency, or mismanagement. We believe it should not, mindful of the admonition uttered over a century ago: “It would be intolerable if . . . all the heads of departments of the city could be haled into court and cross-examined by disaffected taxpayers, or even by some other hostile official, with no result except publicity. It is much better that proceedings of this kind should be confined to the legitimate purposes of the law” … .

Section 1109 is set forth in Chapter 49 of the Charter, entitled “Officers and Employees.” Neither that chapter, nor the Charter itself, defines “violation” or “neglect of duty.” In the absence of a clear definition, either by statute or case law, we are guided by dictionary definitions because they are “useful guideposts” in determining the meaning of a statutory word or phrase … . * * *

… .[W]e find no legal basis to expand section 1109’s reach beyond allegations that clearly fall within the plain meaning of a “violation” or a “neglect of duty…”… . … [P]etitioner’s allegations of administrative mismanagement, namely, the inefficient governmental administration of a computer software … are not sufficient bases to support the instant section 1109 judicial summary inquiry application.  Matter of James v Fariña, 2019 NY Slip Op 01729, First Dept 3-12-19

 

You might also like
JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, GRANTED A MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT IN THE ABSENCE OF A MOTION AND PROPOSED PLEADINGS (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERTS PRESENTED SUFFICIENT PROOF TO WARRANT A FRYE HEARING ON WHETHER A TUMOR MAY HAVE BEEN DETECTABLE BEFORE BIRTH.
PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, MAKESHIFT LADDER SLID OUT FROM UNDER HIM (FIRST DEPT).
APPELLATE DIVISION REDUCED DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE USING ITS PLENARY POWER, DESPITE THE FACTS THAT (1) THE SENTENCE WAS WITHIN PERMISSIBLE LIMITS, (2) THE SENTENCING COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION, AND (3) DEFENDANT HAD AN EXTENSIVE CRIMINAL HISTORY (FIRST DEPT).
FAILURE TO EXPLAIN TO THE JURY THAT ACQUITTAL OF ATTEMPTED MURDER BASED ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE REQUIRED ACQUITTAL OF ASSAULT FIRST WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR, NEW TRIAL ON ASSAULT FIRST ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF WAS NOT AT THE CONSTRUCTION SITE, HE WAS INJURED IN A TEMPORARY FACILITY DOING WORK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION SITE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
ACCORDING TO THE MEDICAL RECORDS, PLAINTIFF PROVIDED HER TREATING PHYSICIAN WITH A DESCRIPTION OF HER SLIP AND FALL WHICH DIFFERED FROM HER DESCRIPTION IN HER DEPOSITION TESTIMONY; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH THE SUBPOENA SERVED ON THE PHYSICIAN SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
Court Must Make a Youthful Offender Determination Even When Defendant Waives It

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

PLAINTIFF IN THIS DERIVATIVE STOCKHOLDER ACTION DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGE... EVIDENCE DEFENDANT’S STEPFATHER APOLOGIZED TO THE ROBBERY VICTIM FOR THE...