Aceto v. Convertino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Aceto v. Convertino

124 A.D.2d 1015, 508 N.Y.S.2d 776, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62352

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 10, 1986·Published

Opinion

Memorandum: Respondent’s determination to terminate petitioner’s employment was supported by substantial evidence in the record and did not constitute a disproportionate penalty. However, respondent should pay petitioner the salary he would have earned between August 1, 1984 and December 12, 1984, less any compensation derived from other employment during that period and any unemployment benefits received for that period (Civil Service Law § 75 [3]; Matter of Sinicropi v Bennett, 60 NY2d 918). (Article 78 proceeding transferred by order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Shaheen, J.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Doerr, Boomer and Schnepp, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Memorandum: Respondent’s determination to terminate petitioner’s employment was supported by substantial evidence in the record and did not constitute a disproportionate penalty. However, respondent should pay petitioner the salary he would have earned between August 1, 1984 and December 12, 1984, less any compensation derived from other employment during that period and any unemployment benefits received for that period (Civil Service Law § 75 [3]; Matter of Sinicropi v Bennett, 60 NY2d 918). (Article 78 proceeding transferred by order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Shaheen, J.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Doerr, Boomer and Schnepp, JJ.

Aceto v. Convertino, 124 A.D.2d 1015, 508 N.Y.S.2d 776, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62352 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

124 A.D.2d 1015 (Aceto v. Convertino) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related