Matter of Neeley v Town of Colonie
2010 NY Slip Op 09606 [79 AD3d 1560]
December 30, 2010
Appellate Division, Third Department
As corrected through Wednesday, February 16, 2011


In the Matter of William Neeley et al., Appellants, v Town of Colonie etal., Respondents.

[*1]DuCharme, Harp & Clark, L.L.P., Clifton Park (Kimberly A. Harp of counsel), forappellants.

Michael C. Magguilli, Town Attorney, Newtonville (Allegra Edelman of counsel), forrespondents.

Rose, J. Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Egan, Jr., J.), entered July 30, 2009 inAlbany County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, dismissed the petition.

Petitioner William Neeley was appointed to the position of Public Works Operation Supervisor in1998, and petitioner Thomas Romano was appointed to the position of Highway MaintenanceSupervisor in 2005. Both Neeley and Romano worked for the Department of Public Works ofrespondent Town of Colonie. Petitioners were suspended from their respective positions in July 2008pending disciplinary charges and a hearing, at the conclusion of which they were found guilty ofmisconduct and demoted. Petitioners each appealed to the Town's personnel officer, who ultimatelyordered that they be suspended without pay for 30 days and restored to their original positions withoutdemotion. Although petitioners were reinstated to their original title, grade and salary effective March26, 2009, they thereafter commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 contending thatcertain of their former duties had been curtailed and, therefore, they had been subject to a de factodemotion. Supreme Court dismissed the proceeding as moot and this appeal ensued.

We affirm. It is undisputed that petitioners were restored to their original title, grade and salary incompliance with the decision issued by the Town's personnel officer. As petitioners [*2]received all the relief to which they were entitled, Supreme Courtproperly dismissed this proceeding as moot (see generally Matter of Lomonaco v Dennison, 29 AD3d 1144 [2006];Matter of Rivera v New York State Div. ofParole, 23 AD3d 863, 864 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 709 [2006]; Matter ofSmalley v Hogue, 278 AD2d 753 [2000]).

Mercure, J.P., Peters, Malone Jr. and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed,without costs.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.