Best Lawblog Contest for 2017 now being conducted by The Legal Institute

From now until
September 15th, 2017, Lawblog fans can nominate their favorite blogs and bloggers for inclusion in the voting round of 2017. As in previous years, the nomination process is competitive, meaning the more nominations a blog receives, the more likely it is to be included in the public voting stage of the contest.

To access the link to the nomination form, click on:

https://www.theexpertinstitute.com/blog-contest/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=CTA&utm_campaign=blog-contest-8.14.2017-general

Tuesday, June 05, 2012

A court order must be “clear and unequivocal” in order to hold a party in contempt for its alleged “failing to comply”

A court order must be “clear and unequivocal” in order to hold a party in contempt for its alleged “failing to comply”
Storman v New York City Dept. of Educ., 2012 NY Slip Op 04217, Appellate Division, First Department

Supreme Court granted, among other things, a motion to hold the New York City Department of Education (DOE) in contempt for its alleged failure to comply with a judgment.

The Appellate Division unanimously reversed the Supreme Court’s action, commenting that it was acting “In the interest of justice, we nostra sponte* [in granting] DOE leave to appeal from the contempt order … which was "made in a proceeding against a body or officer pursuant to article 78" and therefore was not appealable as of right” (see CPLR 5701[b][1]).

The court explained that Supreme Court's “judgment to remand for ‘further proceedings’ was not a ‘clear and unequivocal’ mandate, and thus DOE should not have been held in contempt for allegedly disobeying it.” The remedy, if any, said the Appellate Division “lies in seeking to clarify the … order, which will allow the court to issue a clear and unequivocal mandate.”

Considering a related aspect of the appeal, the Appellate Division noted that the administrative hearing conducted by the Chancellor's Committee "was not determinative but merely advisory" to the Chancellor and thus the "arbitrary and capricious" standard of judicial review applies, not the "substantial evidence" standard.

Accordingly, said the court, “Applying the proper standard, DOE's determination was not arbitrary and capricious, but was rationally based in the record, which included the investigator's report and the testimony of the investigator and principal at the administrative hearing,” citing Murane v Department of Education, 82 AD3d 576.

* Nostra Sponte - an action by a court undertaken on its own inherent authority.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_04217.htm

Handbooks focusing on State and Municipal Public Personnel Law continue to be available for purchase via the links provided below:

The Discipline Book at http://thedisciplinebook.blogspot.com/

A Reasonable Penalty Under The Circumstances at http://nypplarchives.blogspot.com

The Disability Benefits E-book: at http://section207.blogspot.com/

Layoff, Preferred Lists at http://nylayoff.blogspot.com/

Caution:

Subsequent court and administrative rulings, or changes to laws, rules and regulations may have modified or clarified or vacated or reversed the decisions summarized here. Accordingly, these summaries should be Shepardized® or otherwise checked to make certain that the most recent information is being considered by the reader.

THE MATERIAL ON THIS WEBSITE IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY. CHANGES IN LAWS, RULES, REGULATIONS AND NEW COURT AND ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS MAY AFFECT THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS LAWBLOG. THE MATERIAL PRESENTED IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND THE USE OF ANY MATERIAL POSTED ON THIS WEBSITE DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP.

Consistent with the Declaration of Principles jointly adopted by a Committee of the American Bar Association and a Committee of Publishers and Associations, the material in this blog is presented with the understanding that the publisher is not providing legal advice to the reader and in the event legal or other expert assistance is needed, the reader should seek such advice from a competent professional.

Items published in NYPPL may not be used for commercial purposes without prior written permission to copy and distribute such material. Send your request via e-mail to publications@nycap.rr.com

Copyright© 1987 - 2017 by the Public Employment Law Press.



___________________



N.B. From time to time a political ad or endorsement may appear in the sidebar of this Blog. NYPPL does not have any control over such posting.

_____________________

.