Nicoletti v. Meyer, 42 A.D.3d 722 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007). · Go Syfert
Search
Nicoletti v. Meyer, 42 A.D.3d 722 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases · …directly supported . . . the establishment of the charges preferred ⚠ not in text
9 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Zlotnick v. City of Saratoga Springs (nyappdiv, 2014-11-26)
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Zlotnick v. City of Saratoga Springs
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Accordingly, “when an officer institutes charges of misconduct and testifies at [the] ensuing hearing, that officer, in the interest of fairness, must disqualify [himself or] herself from reviewing the Hearing Officer’s recommendations and rendering a final determination” (Matter of DiMattina v LaBua, 262 AD2d 409, 410 [1999]; see Matter of Ernst v Saratoga County, 234 AD2d 764, 767-768 [1996]; Matter of Lowy v Carter, 210 AD2d 408, 409 [1994]; Matter of Hicks v Fortier, 117 AD2d 930, 930-931 [1986]; see also Matter of Ashe v Town Bd. of the Town of Crown Point, N.Y., 97 AD3d at 1023; Ma…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Zlotnick v. City of Saratoga Springs
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Accordingly, “when an officer institutes charges of misconduct and testifies at [the] ensuing hearing, that officer, in the interest of fairness, must disqualify [himself or] herself from reviewing the Hearing Officer’s recommendations and rendering a final determination” (Matter of DiMattina v LaBua, 262 AD2d 409, 410 [1999]; see Matter of Ernst v Saratoga County, 234 AD2d 764, 767-768 [1996]; Matter of Lowy v Carter, 210 AD2d 408, 409 [1994]; Matter of Hicks v Fortier, 117 AD2d 930, 930-931 [1986]; see also Matter of Ashe v Town Bd. of the Town of Crown Point, N.Y., 97 AD3d at 1023; Ma…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Baker v. Poughkeepsie City School District
NY · 2012 · confidence medium
The cases cited by the majority for that proposition involve situations where the individual testifying against the employee either actually preferred the charges (see Matter of Ernst v Saratoga County, 234 AD2d 764 [3d Dept 1996] [witness preferred the charges, appointed the hearing officer and voted to sustain hearing officer’s findings of fact and recommendation]; Matter of Lowy, 210 AD2d at 409 [witness preferred charges and testified]; Matter of Hicks v Fortier, 117 AD2d 930 [3d Dept 1986] [witness preferred the charges, testified at the hearing and rendered the final determination]) or…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Baker v. Poughkeepsie City School District
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · confidence medium
Due to their personal involvement in the matter, the two members of the Board who testified at the disciplinary hearing should have disqualified themselves from reviewing the recommendation of the hearing officer and acting on any of the charges (see Matter of Nicoletti v Meyer, 42 AD3d 722, 722-723 [2007]; Matter of Correia v Incorporated Vil. of Northport, 12 AD3d 599, 600 [2004]; Matter of Clinch v Town of Hyde Park, 277 AD2d 451, 452 [2000]; Matter of Pryor v O’Donnell, 262 AD2d 648, 648-649 [1999]).
discussed Cited "see" Ashe v. Town Board of Crown Point
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
While an objection to a particular hearing officer generally must be timely asserted at the hearing to preserve the issue (see Matter of Longton v Village of Corinth, 57 AD3d 1273, 1276 [2008], lv denied 13 NY3d 709 [2009]), it is incumbent upon a person who has been extensively involved in the disciplinary process to "disqualify[ ] himself or herself from [involvement in] rendering a final determination” (Matter of Baker v Poughkeepsie City School Dist., 18 NY3d at 718 ; see Matter of Nicoletti v Meyer, 42 AD3d 722, 722-723 [2007]).
discussed Cited "see" Ashe v. Town Board of Crown Point
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
While an objection to a particular hearing officer generally must be timely asserted at the hearing to preserve the issue (see Matter of Longton v Village of Corinth, 57 AD3d 1273, 1276 [2008], lv denied 13 NY3d 709 [2009]), it is incumbent upon a person who has been extensively involved in the disciplinary process to "disqualify[ ] himself or herself from [involvement in] rendering a final determination” (Matter of Baker v Poughkeepsie City School Dist., 18 NY3d at 718 ; see Matter of Nicoletti v Meyer, 42 AD3d 722, 722-723 [2007]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Phillip Nicoletti
v.
Robert A. Meyer, as Commissioner of Public Works for the County of Sullivan
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jul 12, 2007.
42 A.D.3d 722
Carpinello.
Cited by 7 opinions  |  Published
Carpinello, J.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Sullivan County) to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Public Works which terminated petitioner’s employment with respondent County of Sullivan.

In May 2005, several disciplinary charges were brought against petitioner, the Deputy Commissioner and Director of Operations of the Sullivan County Division of Public Works, stemming from allegations that he unlawfully entered certain county offices and photocopied confidential documents, that he used county purchase requisitions to obtain property for himself and that he pressured a county legislator to stop a then ongoing investigation into the alleged improprieties within the Division of Public Works. A Hearing Officer was appointed to preside over the matter* and a disciplinary hearing ensued during the course of which respondent Robert A. Meyer (who in the interim had been named the Commissioner of Public Works) and his wife testified. The Hearing Officer found petitioner guilty of three charges of misconduct and recommended his termination. Meyer then issued a final determination finding petitioner guilty of four charges of misconduct and terminating his employment. Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging Meyer’s determination, which has been transferred to this Court.

We are constrained to agree with petitioner’s contention that Meyer should have recused himself from reviewing the Hearing Officer’s recommendations and rendering a final determination since both he and his wife were witnesses at the disciplinary[*723] hearing (see Matter of Ernst v Saratoga County, 234 AD2d 764, 767-768 [1996]). We therefore remit the matter simply for a de novo determination by a duly-qualified designee based on the same hearing record and the same Hearing Officer recommendation (see Matter of Lowy v Carter, 210 AD2d 408, 409 [1994]; Matter of Hicks v Fortier, 117 AD2d 930, 930-931 [1986]; Matter of Edgar v Dowling, 96 AD2d 510, 510-511 [1983]; Matter of Ortiz v Lesser, 83 AD2d 663, 664 [1981]; see also Matter of Ernst v Saratoga County, supra). We reach no other issue (see Matter of Hicks v Fortier, supra at 931).

Mercure, J.E, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is annulled, on the law, without costs, and matter remitted to respondents for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court’s decision.

The supplemental record on review submitted by petitioner’s attorney contains a May 24, 2005 written designation of authority to the Hearing Officer. Thus, petitioner’s argument that the absence of a written designation mandates annulment of the determination is patently without merit.