Contempt proceeding used to enforce a court order directing reinstatement

To contact us Click HERE

Contemptproceeding used to enforce a court order directing reinstatement
Angel Nunez v City of New York, 43 AD3d 808
Angel Nunez obtained a court order directing hisreinstatement to his former position, or a comparable position, with the NewYork City Department of Sanitation, together with back pay and benefits [Cityof New York v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 229 AD2d 307, leave toappeal denied, 89 NY2d 801]. Sanitation, however, neither reinstated Nunez tohis former position nor to an equivalent position.
Nunez then petitioned the court to compel his reinstatement.Supreme Court dismissed his petition to have the Department to reinstate him,ruling that he delayed too long in bringing his action and thus Nunez wasguilty of laches 
The Appellate Division reverse the lower court’s ruling,noting that although Nunez, an attorney, had waited 15 months before bringingthe matter to the attention of the court rather than seeking earlier judicialintervention, both he and the Department had contributed to the delay.
The Appellate Division said that Nunez’s recourse was tobring a contempt proceeding when the Department failed to comply with the orderof the court. It said that it “was futile to insist that [Nunez] bring a newcomplaint with the Division of Human Rights before seeking enforcement.” Itthen converted Nunez’s action into a “contempt proceeding” and remanded thecase to Supreme Court for a hearing.
The decision is posted on the Internet at:http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2007/2007_07072.htm