You are here: / / THE FIRE DEPARTMENT BOARD OF WARDENS SHOULD NOT HAVE REMOVED A FIREFIGHTER...
,

THE FIRE DEPARTMENT BOARD OF WARDENS SHOULD NOT HAVE REMOVED A FIREFIGHTER FROM MEMBERSHIP IN THE VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING PURSUANT TO GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 209-L (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing the Blue Point Fire Department Board of Wardens’ removal from membership of a volunteer firefighter, determined the firefighter should have been afforded a hearing pursuant to General Municipal Law 209-L:

“Pursuant to General Municipal Law § 209-l, volunteer firefighters cannot be removed from office or membership for incompetence or misconduct, except for absenteeism at fires or meetings, unless they are afforded a hearing” … . However, “[t]hat section, by its own terms, does not affect the right of members of any fire company to remove a volunteer officer or voluntary member of such company for failure to comply with the constitution and by-laws of such company” … .

Here, after a meeting at which the petitioner appeared, the Board of Wardens found that he had violated Article V, Section 1(C), of the bylaws, by donating department property in contravention of an order from the chief of the department. That provision of the bylaws authorized the chief of the department to suspend members of the department for insubordination, refusal to follow orders, and for conduct unbecoming or detrimental to the department, and required the Board of Wardens to review such suspensions. The bylaws did not empower the Board of Wardens to dismiss a member based on a violation of Article V, Section 1(C). Thus, a hearing pursuant to General Municipal Law § 209-l was required … . Matter of McDowell v Blue Point Fire Dept., 2020 NY Slip Op 06793, Second Dept 11-18-20

 

You might also like
RETROACTIVE IMPOSTION OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL SEX OFFENDER VICTIM FEE DOES NOT VIOLATE THE EX POST FACTO CLAUSE (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER CONTRACTORS WHICH DID SIDEWALK/GRATE WORK LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; THE CONTRACTORS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Homeowner’s Exception Did Not Apply
THE LANDLORD DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF ANY PRIOR ROBBERIES OCCURRING IN THE BUILDING, THEREFORE THE TENANT-ROBBERY-VICTIM’S COMPLAINT WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
THE PERSON WHO ASSAULTED PLAINTIFF WAS THE OWNER OF THE LAW FIRM PLAINTIFF WORKED FOR; PLAINTIFF COULD RECOVER WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS FROM THE LAW FIRM AND DAMAGES FOR ASSAULT AND BATTERY FROM THE OWNER, WHO WAS A COEMPLOYEE (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE PARTIES WERE DIVORCED IN COLORADO, THEY AND THEIR CHILDREN RESIDE IN NEW YORK; THE SUPPORT MAGISTRATE SHOULD NOT HAVE APPLIED COLORADO LAW IN DETERMINING FATHER’S SUPPORT OBLIGATION (SECOND DEPT).
A SMALL AMOUNT OF COCAINE IN PLAIN VIEW IN DEFENDANT DRIVER’S POCKET DID NOT PROVIDE PROBABLE CAUSE TO SEARCH THE TRUNK OF DEFENDANT’S CAR AFTER A TRAFFIC STOP (SECOND DEPT).
PETITIONER ORGANIZATION DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE CONSTRUCTION OF ASPHALT PLANT NEAR A STATE PARK.

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

THE MATERNAL GRANDMOTHER HAD STANDING TO PETITION FOR VISITATION AFTER MOTHER’S... THE CUSTODY ARRANGEMENTS SET FORTH IN A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE...