Skrypek v. Bennett, 861 N.E.2d 812 (NY 2006). · Go Syfert
Search
Skrypek v. Bennett, 861 N.E.2d 812 (NY 2006). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
9 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Matter of Carcone v. City of Utica (nyappdiv, 2020-07-17)
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Carcone v. City of Utica
N.Y. App. Div. · 2020 · confidence medium
Waiver, however, does not occur when the parties are "equally responsible" for the delay ( Matter of Skrypek v Bennett , 7 NY3d 919, 919 [2006]; see Fusco , 67 AD2d at 827 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Civil Services Employees Ass'n ex rel. Martelli v. Cortland Housing Authority
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Simply stated, an employer’s best protection against a back pay award accruing is to hold the hearing within 30 days or, if beyond 30 days, create a clear record reflecting that it is not responsible for the delay (see generally Matter of Skrypek v Bennett, 7 NY3d 919, 919-920 [2006]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Civil Services Employees Ass'n ex rel. Martelli v. Cortland Housing Authority
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Simply stated, an employer’s best protection against a back pay award accruing is to hold the hearing within 30 days or, if beyond 30 days, create a clear record reflecting that it is not responsible for the delay (see generally Matter of Skrypek v Bennett, 7 NY3d 919, 919-920 [2006]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Rea v. City of Kingston (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
He sought pay for the period commencing 30 days after his suspension (see Civil Service Law § 75 [3]; Matter of Skrypek v Bennett, 7 NY3d 919, 919-920 [2006]; Gerber v New York City Hous.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Rea v. City of Kingston (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
He sought pay for the period commencing 30 days after his suspension (see Civil Service Law § 75 [3]; Matter of Skrypek v Bennett, 7 NY3d 919, 919-920 [2006]; Gerber v New York City Hous.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Randall R. Skrypek
v.
Wayne E. Bennett, as Superintendent of the New York State Police
New York Court of Appeals.
Dec 21, 2006.
861 N.E.2d 812
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Gleason, Dunn, Walsh & O’Shea, Albany (Michael E Ravalli and Thomas F. Gleason of counsel), for appellants., Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General, Albany (Frank K. Walsh, Caitlin J. Halligan, Daniel Smirlock and Andrea Oser of counsel), for respondents.
Cited by 5 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and the judgment of Supreme Court reinstated.

When both the employer and employee are equally responsible for the delay in a disciplinary hearing, as is the case here, the employee may not properly be considered to have waived his right to back pay (see Matter of Fusco v Griffin, 67 AD2d 827 [4th Dept 1979]). Accordingly, petitioner is entitled to an award[*920] of back pay for the period of his prehearing suspension exceeding 30 days.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read, Smith and Pigott concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order reversed, etc.