Case ID: ad3d_90/html/0756-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In the Matter of Daniel Haase et al., Petitioners, v Christopher Del Vecchio, Respondent.
    Motion by the appellant on an appeal from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County, dated August 13, 2010, inter alia, to strike the respondent’s brief on the ground that it refers to matter dehors the record and contains misstatements of fact or, in the alternative, to strike stated portions of the brief. By decision and order on motion of this Court dated September 1, 2011, the motion was held in abeyance and referred to the panel of Justices hearing the appeal for determination upon the argument or submission thereof.
    Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, and upon the argument of the appeal, it is,
    Ordered that the motion is denied. Rivera, J.P, Leventhal, Belen and Roman, JJ., concur.
    [934 NYS2d 330]
   The allegations in the petition do not rise to the level of misconduct, maladministration, malfeasance, or malversation necessary to justify the extreme remedy of removal from office pursuant to Public Officers Law § 36 (see Matter of Futia v Weaver, 85 AD3d 1165 [2011]; Matter of Montanino v Rowley, 39 AD3d 653 [2007]; Matter of Deats v Carpenter, 61 AD2d 320, 322 [1978]).

We decline the respondent’s request for the imposition of sanctions against the petitioners in connection with this proceeding (see Rules of Chief Administrator of Cts [22 NYCRR] § 130-1.1).

In light of our determination, the respondent’s remaining contention has been rendered academic. Rivera, J.E, Leventhal, Roman and Sgroi, JJ., concur.