N.Y. Laws » CHAPTER Public Officers / ARTICLE Creation and Filling of Vacancies
New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Public Officers Law § 36 (2026)

Removal of town, village, improvement district or fire district officer by court

✓ text as retrieved May 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
§ 36. Removal of town, village, improvement district or fire district
officer by court. Any town, village, improvement district or fire
district officer, except a justice of the peace, may be removed from
office by the supreme court for any misconduct, maladministration,
malfeasance or malversation in office. An application for such removal
may be made by any citizen resident of such town, village, improvement
district or fire district or by the district attorney of the county in
which such town, village or district is located, and shall be made to
the appellate division of the supreme court held within the judicial
department embracing such town, village, improvement district or fire
district. Such application shall be made upon notice to such officer of
not less than eight days, and a copy of the charges upon which the
application will be made must be served with such notice.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 76 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1987–2026 · leading case: Salvador v. Ross, 61 A.D.3d 1163 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Salvador v. Ross, 61 A.D.3d 1163 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2009). · cites it 3× “She also requests that sanctions be imposed by this Court for frivolous conduct.”
Reszka v. Collins, 109 A.D.3d 1134 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2013). · cites it 2× “Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this original proceeding pursuant to Public Officers Law § 36 seeking the removal of respondent as a council member of the Town Board of the Town of Hamburg.”
McCarthy v. Sanford, 24 A.D.3d 1168 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2005). “Initially, we will consider the allegation of a violation of the Open Meetings Law as an additional statement of alleged improper activity by respondents, not as a separate claim for relief under that law.”
Rubeor v. Town of Wright, 191 F. Supp. 3d 198 (N.D.N.Y. 2016). “and that an assessor-is a public officer who ordinarily may only be removed from office for cause under Public Officers Law § 36. The question presented- is whether a CAP changes this structure.”
Chandler v. Weir, 30 A.D.3d 795 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2006). “Respondents move to dismiss the petition for failure to state a cause of action and we grant that motion.”
Salvador v. Naylor, 222 A.D.2d 931 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 1995). · cites it 2× “Petitioners, residents of the Town of Queensbury, Warren County, commenced this proceeding pursuant to Public Officers Law § 36 to remove respondent from his position as Town Superintendent of Highways.”
Hayes v. Avitabile, 133 A.D.3d 1184 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015). · cites it 2× “Petitioner commenced this original proceeding pursuant to Public Officers Law § 36 seeking to remove respondent from the office of Mayor of the Village of Middleburgh in Schoharie County.”
Price v. Evers, 45 A.D.3d 1075 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2007). “In our view, the allegations in the petition and accompanying affidavits, even if accepted as true, do not rise to the level required for removal from office pursuant to Public Officers Law § 36.”
Warren v. Bielecki, 92 A.D.3d 1244 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2012). · cites it 2× “Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this proceeding to remove respondents from public office pursuant to Public Officers Law § 36. Inasmuch as respondents no longer hold public office, the proceeding is moot (see Matter of Copp v Lankford, 283 AD2d 980 [2001]; Matter of McCoach v…”
Enos v. Vill. of Seneca Falls, 288 A.D.2d 853 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2001). · cites it 2× “Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding, alleging, inter alia, that her termination was improper because the meeting on May 18, 2000 violated the Open Meetings Law (Public Officers Law art 7) and because respondents failed to comply with Public Officers Law § 36 in…”
Morin v. Gallagher, 221 A.D.2d 765 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 1995). “The allegations contained in the petition, even if accepted as true, do not rise to the level required for removal from office.”
DeFalco v. Doetsch, 208 A.D.2d 1047 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 1994). “Petitioner now moves for confirmation of the report and an order removing respondents from office pursuant to Public Officers Law § 36. Respondents oppose the motion, urging that many of the Referee’s findings are contradicted by the evidence, and that the remainder constitute…”
Show all 76 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.