| IN THE MATTER OF CHET ALLEN BOTTORFF V HON. ANTHONY F. SHAHEEN, ONEIDA COUNTY SUPREME COURT JUDGE, ANTHONY J. PICANTE |
| Motion No: OP 08-01269 |
| Slip Opinion No: 2008 NYSlipOp 81344(U) |
| Decided on August 21, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department, Motion Decision |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This motion is uncorrected and is not subject to publication in the Official Reports. |
PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., HURLBUTT, MARTOCHE, PERADOTTO, AND PINE, JJ.
DOCKET NO. OP 08-01269
| IN THE MATTER OF CHET ALLEN BOTTORFF, PETITIONER, V HON.
ANTHONY F. SHAHEEN, ONEIDA COUNTY SUPREME COURT JUDGE, ANTHONY J. PICANTE, ONEIDA COUNTY EXECUTIVE, BRENT WHITTINGTON, CITY OF UTICA,
DANIEL G. MIDDAUGH, ONEIDA COUNTY SHERIFF, DAVID A. HANSELL, COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT TEMPORARY DISABILITY ASSISTANCE, DAVID J.
SWARTS, COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, GRACE C. ZOGBY, JOHN S. BALZANO, UTICA CITY COURT JUDGE, JOHN DOE "NO NAME"
UTICA CITY MARSHAL, LUCILLE A. SOLDATO, COMMISSIONER, ONEIDA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, MICHAEL J. CANCILLA, MNC ASSOCIATES, INC.,
ONEIDA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, RYAN L. ACETO, SCOTT D. MCNAMARA, ONEIDA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND UTICA POLICE DEPARTMENT,
RESPONDENTS. |
Respondents Honorable Anthony F. Shaheen, David A. Hansell and David J. Swarts having moved to dismiss the original CPLR article 78 proceeding commenced in this Court on June 11, 2008 on the ground, inter alia, that petitioner lacks standing to commence the proceeding, Now, upon reading and filing the affirmation of Owen Demuth dated July 10, 2008, the notice of motion with proof of service thereof, the affidavit of Charles N. Brown sworn to July 25, 2008, "Petitioner's Third Argument, Memorandum of Law and Points and Authorities in Opposition to Motion to Motion to Dismiss," and due deliberation having been had thereon,
It is hereby ORDERED that the motion be, and the same hereby is, granted, and the proceeding is dismissed without costs.
Memorandum: A CPLR article 78 proceeding does not lie against respondent Shaheen because another adequate remedy at law was available (see CPLR 7801 [a]; Matter of Art-Tex Petroleum v New York State Dept. of Audit & Control, 93 NY2d 830, 832 [1999]), and the remaining respondents are not proper respondents in an original CPLR article 78 proceeding in
this Court (see CPLR 506 [b] [1]).
Entered: August 21, 2008
JoAnn M. Wahl, Clerk