Legal Opinion
Cerio v. New York City Transit Authority
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided June 24, 1996PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
The petitioner’s argument that his due process rights were violated when, at the hearing, the Administrative Law Judge amended specification three of the charges, is without merit (see, Matter of Ackerman v Ambach, 73 NY2d 323, 333). Pleadings may be amended to conform to the proof at any time, "provided that no prejudice is shown (see, CPLR 3025 [a])” (Fitzpatrick v American Honda Motor Co., 78 NY2d 61, 69). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate any such prejudice (see also, Matter of Block v Ambach, 73 NY2d 323).
Furthermore, the determination was supported by substantial evidence,…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Fitzpatrick v. American Honda Motor Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1991
- Block v. AmbachNew York Court of Appeals · 1989
- Ahsaf v. NyquistNew York Court of Appeals · 1975
- Moorehead v. New York City Transit AuthorityAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1993
3Cited by8 opinions
- D & D Mason Contractors, Inc. v. SmithAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- Kiselgof v. New York State Division of Housing & Community RenewalAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2005
- Gatto v. BrownAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996
- Miles v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998
- Plazinska v. New York State Division of Housing & Community RenewalAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2005
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.